Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

White House rips Forbes article

Dinesh D'Souza has drawn a torrent of criticism with a Forbes cover story that accuses President Obama of adopting "the cause of anti-colonialism" from his Kenyan father.

forbes
Sept. 27 issue of Forbes magazine. (Courtesy of Forbes)

But while most detractors focus on the author--and Newt Gingrich, who embraced the critique--the White House is aiming its ammunition at the business magazine.

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

Gibbs is meeting with Thursday afternoon with Forbes's Washington bureau chief, Brian Wingfield, to discuss his objections. "Did they not fact-check this at all, or did they fact-check it and just willfully ignore it?" he asks.

The magazine would not make Editor-in-Chief Steve Forbes, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1996 and 2000, available for comment, or any other editor. The biweekly did issue a statement: "Dinesh D'Souza's cover story was presented as an analysis of how the president thinks. No facts are in contention. Forbes stands by the story."

But some facts are very much in contention, and D'Souza--who loosely based the article on his forthcoming book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage"--isn't hesitant to discuss his work.

Reached separately in New York, D'Souza, 49, who worked in the Reagan White House, says his argument that the president was heavily influenced by the late Barack Obama Sr. is a "psychological theory." But, he insists, "the idea that Obama has roots that are foreign is not an allegation, it's a statement of fact."

The facts are also these: Obama Sr. abandoned the family when his son was 2, and the future president saw his father only one more time, during a visit in Hawaii when he was 10. Obama Sr. died in 1982.

Gibbs says the Forbes attack comes at a time when there is "no limit to innuendo" against the president, including baseless charges that he is a Muslim and was not born in the United States. Forbes, he says, "left the facts on the cutting-room floor."

Dinesh
Dinesh D'Souza. (Courtey of Dinesh D'Souza)

D'Souza acknowledges one error. He wrote that Obama "is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa." Obama visited Pakistan once, as a college student, when he was older than 17. (Hawaii, of course, may be off the American mainland, but it is hardly out of the American mainstream.)

When Gingrich called the article profound and said Obama has a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" world view, Gibbs accused the former House speaker of "trying to appeal to the fringe." Gingrich told the Daily Caller that his own remarks "seemed to touch some kind of irrational nerve on the left."

The Forbes piece begins by calling Obama "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history." D'Souza then uses long, winding threads in an attempt to tie Obama's policies to his upbringing. "He took his father's dream, his vision, his ideology," D'Souza says in the interview.

While describing Obama Sr. as a polygamist and drunk driver who has been accused of wife-beating, the author says that the president "adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder.... He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West...Clearly the anti-colonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. ..... The invisible father provides the inspiration."

gibbs
Robert Gibbs called the publication of the story "stunning."

As one example, D'Souza writes that the Export-Import Bank, "with Obama's backing," last year offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil to explore for oil that he says would remain in Brazil (though presumably it could be exported). Gibbs notes that the bank had no Obama appointees at the time and that the president's nominee to run the bank was awaiting Senate confirmation. D'Souza calls this a "semantic game," saying the president had the authority to stop the financing.

D'Souza, who has been affiliated with conservative think tanks, has written more than a dozen books, including "The End of Racism," "Illiberal Education" and "Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader."

In the interview, D'Souza says he explicitly rejects the notion that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii and calls suggestions that he is race-baiting "preposterous." As someone who spent his first 17 years in India, he says he feels "an eerie similarity to my own background" in examining a president who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. "I'm completely Americanized--I have an American accent, an American wife--but a residue of me is foreign."

D'Souza says his thinking about Obama's influences draws heavily from the president's memoir, "Dreams From My Father." But that book describes a young man's struggle to understand his African roots and the father he never really knew, and offers a largely critical portrait of the Harvard-educated man who left his family.

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

More on this story:

Politerati: Gingrich says Obama has 'Kenyan' views

The Forbes article: How Obama thinks

Opinion: Kathleen Parker: Obama an 'anti-colonialist'? Poppycock!

Opinion: Eugene Robinson: Gingrich, unhinged on Obama

From the archive: D'Souza: Bin Laden, the left and me

By Howard Kurtz  | September 16, 2010; 2:37 PM ET
Categories:  Latest stories, Top story  | Tags:  Barack Obama Sr., Dinesh D'Souza, Dreams from My Father, Forbes, Kenyan, Obama, Robert Gibbs, anticolonial  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'Daily Show' takes tea
Next: Rove defends O'Donnell criticism

Comments

Gibbs and Obama,

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Posted by: bryanmanalyst | September 16, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

If the shoe fits, where it.

Posted by: MikeS651 | September 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

ah shucks...the potus under fire AGAIN and he's got his 'point man' out taking the heat! Typical. Personally I don't care if the half white/half black individual was born on the moon...he's just the most anti American leader that this country has ever been subjected to. I think we had better relations when the British still ruled our lands!

Posted by: loumic4 | September 16, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

1st) What's wrong with anti-colonialism? After all, wasn't our country founded by fighting against colonialism?

2nd) D'Souza dated Ann Coulter. 'nough said.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Reached separately in New York, D'Souza, 49, who worked in the Reagan White House, says his argument that the president was heavily influenced by the late Barack Obama Sr. is a "psychological theory."

--

A "psychological theory"? What kind of nonsense is this? This is the best this two bit political hack can do to defend the piece of garbage he has written? It is a disgrace that any respectable publication would print this junk.

Posted by: twm1 | September 16, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse


Gibsy is dissing dentists now? He had better hope his dentist doesn't drill holes in his teeth ala Marathon Man!

Posted by: VaPatriot | September 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Anti-colonial is code for anti-white.

It has been used before by the British to generate sympathy in America and Europe for their plight against the natives in Africa who fought tooth and nail for independence with very little help from the outside except the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Anti-colonial is thus both anti-white and pro-Marxist.

That's McCarthyism imbued with racism.

All evil starts with the British.

Posted by: rambostilskin | September 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

When did "anti-colonialism" become a bad thing? I am proudly anti-colonialist, as were Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and George Washington.

Posted by: dricks | September 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Anti-colonial is code for anti-white.

It has been used before by the British to generate sympathy in America and Europe for their plight against the natives in Africa who fought tooth and nail for independence with very little help from the outside except the Soviet Union and Cuba.

Anti-colonial is thus both anti-white and pro-Marxist.

That's McCarthyism imbued with racism.

All evil starts with the British.

Posted by: rambostilskin | September 16, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact,"

It a stunning thing, to see an individual like Obama in the White House, so lacking in truth and fact.

Posted by: gun313 | September 16, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

From the article: "Gingrich told the Daily Caller that his own remarks 'seemed to touch some kind of irrational nerve on the left.'"
__________________________________

Yes, Gingrich touched nerves all right: those who favor a least of modicum of truth and rational thought in discourse had their nerves touched (the fools, they, apparently . . .). But I don't think it is those with the raw nerve ends (in this case) who are the irrational ones.

Newt Gingrich is a bright and articulate guy. Too bad he has a very casual relationship with the truth. May he never, ever regain the levers of power.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | September 16, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a flat out Marxist looking to bring down this nations Constitution and replace it with Communist anti religious Elites!


Posted by: jjcrocket14 | September 16, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Cynicism and the internet are two things that brought together create vast mistrust. Michaele Salahi has MS? Really? Obama is an illegal immigrant? Really? 1 in 7 Americans are at the poverty level? Really? What can we believe? The tea Party is our savior? Really? It's a brave new world indeed.

Posted by: swatkins1 | September 16, 2010 12:20 PM | Report abuse

-John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, even less a part of the U.S. than Hawaii!
-Interesting that the article's author equates Hawaii with Pakistan and Indonesia. Sarah Palin's Alaska is on the mainland, but as close to Russia as it is to the rest of the U.S. Hmmmmm.
-It would have been interesting if the article's author had given some proof that Obama's world view was determined by contact with his father up to age 2, rather than just implying that it was (genetically-determined views??).
-The author also should have noted the composition of the Ex-Im Bank and then said it was irrelevant (in his view) in the article. The article left out the composition of the board. Are Kenyans in favor of loans (not a grant) to Brazil? Have other such loans been granted over the years? We don't know from the article.

Posted by: Sutter | September 16, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

One CAN be born in the U.S. and culturally American and still be "anti-colonialist." If being anti-imperialist makes you "foreign" to American culture, well that says a lot more about American culture than it does about Obama's cultural "residues."

The ultimate fatal sin for a U.S. politician is have empathy for the worldview of non-Americans. Apparently "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is another foreign cultural residue from the Middle East that many of us can't shake.

Posted by: Russolini | September 16, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

The truth hurts, doesn't it? better toughen that skin, Mr President- Bush sure had to, with all the ridicule and disrespect he had to put up with. Pick up your toys and go home, Gibbs, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Geithner- party's over.

Posted by: CaPatriot | September 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a Public Relations Dream and has become a PR Nightmare.

Obama is a Pet Rock, a fad. He is a result of Marketing playing the role of Product Development. The Product goes no deeper than than the Multimedia Brochures.

He is a boy band that can only lip-sync, err Teleprompt.

The difference between Obama and other great African-American Greats is that most of them built their own successes while Obama is nothing more than a pampered puppet who is only 'articulate' when he is reading the script.

Posted by: SteveAMorris | September 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I will pay as much attention to this article as I did to the avalanche of half-truths, misstatements, mistruths, distortions, miserable mockery, exaggerations, accusations, irresponsible bloviating, name-calling, conspiracy theories, outlandish "connect-the-dots," preposterous flights of imagination and other acts of media-sanctioned lunacy that marked the 8 years of George W. Bush. That man, and anyone who came within a mile of him, was dead on arrival from the disputed election forward.

Obama has to learn that he is in the real world, and the same sentiment of disrespect, blame and rabble-rousing that propelled him to where he is could be turned against him by the same crazies. I am sorry that there are still some idiots who want to cleave to a "birth theory" conspiracy, but it pales in comparison to what Bush--and, frankly, Clinton--was subjected to.

Posted by: whnew1 | September 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Poll: Howard Kurtz appeal, extremely narrow. Washington Post appeal, extremely narrow.

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | September 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments so far indicate the target demographic for this book.

Posted by: charodon | September 16, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

This is a bizarre charge to levy against the President. I understand it coming from D'Souza, who again displays his penchant for saying outrageous things because it gets him visibility. Once he hits the lecture circuit, he puts on a pretty good show.

Gingrich is harder to swallow. Can he really believe this stuff? Or has he concluded that if the last 10 years of Republican politics proves anything, it's that big lies go over just as easily as little ones?

Posted by: krickey7 | September 16, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Where are the writings by Obama’s father?? The views that his son adopts?
Bob Leonard. bestleonard.com

Posted by: bestbobleonard | September 16, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

MikeS651 wrote: "If the shoe fits, where it."

.

.

I sea yoo knead a lessin inn spelling, ass well ass a lessin in homonyms. Doesn't yoo no that their are wurds that sounds the sam, but meen diffrent thingys?

Posted by: swatkins1 | September 16, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

What are you objecting to Howard Kurtz? The fact that Obama's father was a COMMUNIST or an ANTI-COLONIALIST?


Do you object to most of Obama's mentors as a youth were COMMUNIST? Or that he HAS an anti-colonial viewpoint?


What do you object to Howard Kurtz?

Posted by: FormerDemocrat | September 16, 2010 12:28 PM | Report abuse

If we can believe that Obama sat in a church pew for 25 years and came away unaffected, we can believe that he spent little time among his non-American "roots" and yet was strongly affected. It is not the number of dots you can connect that matter; it is how strongly and deeply the individual identifies with his cultural, psychological, and intellectual influences that matters. D'Souza may not have connected enough dots to substantiate his argument. Doesn't mean he was not accurate in his overall assessment.

Posted by: geezer64 | September 16, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

It appears that D'Souza has serious psychological issues of his own-- a need for him to be accepted by a racist Republican party that suspects anyone who is not born here. To placate his psychological masters, he is projecting psychological issues onto Obama. Sadly, D'Souza, having missed elementary school in the US, perhaps does not understand that the US threw off a colonial power. Does he know about George Washington?
Of course, I am making all of this up (except about the Republican party).
But it does make more sense than D'Souza's Forbes article.

Posted by: bethechangeyouwant | September 16, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact,"

It a stunning thing, to see an individual like Obama in the White House, so lacking in truth and fact.

via gun313

---

It's a stunning thing to see an individual who can't accept the will of the people, which they express with their votes.

I'm pleased to see that someone on the WaPo staff can write an objective piece on Obama without just echoing this kind of right-wing nonsence. Thank you.

Posted by: lesparsley | September 16, 2010 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Remind me once again: Weren't the guys who threw (so to speak) the first Tea Party anti-colonialists? And the folks who fought the American Revolution against the British, weren't they anti-colonial too?

Oopsies! Well, there goes THAT argument.

Posted by: Nosy_Parker | September 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The Forbes article is well written and thoughtful The facts are the facts - not twisted as the White House would want us to believe.

Obama has to be dealing with major abandonment issues - wondering why his father chose Kenya and his other wives and kids over the prince Barry Hussein.

I was puzzled by the really poor behavior of Obama to return the bust of Churchill to England. That bust had been given to us the people, long before the pipsqueak Odumbo arrived on the scene. It was given by our English friends to us in memory of 9/11, years ago.

Churchill was every bit an American that Odumbo is since his mother was Jennie Jerome from NY.

Another 'fact' explains Obama's rude behavior in our name to England. His Luo Kenyan grandfather was sent to a camp by Churchill along with others of his tribe. It happened in the primitive revolts before Kenyan independence. It was not a particularly harsh action but further explains Obama's anticolonialism.

I want the bust of Churchill back here in the US like it was meant to be.

Just what right did Obama have to return it? If it bothered him so much he could have put it in a storage closet for the 4 yr duration of his presidency. Instead Obama insulted a very long term, best friend.

Barry's Socialism bent is more of a thing to get his dad's attention and approval in his dreams. He definitely needs a psychiatrist before he does more harm to the US.

Posted by: mlemac | September 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Now we know who would have been royalists in 1776.

When will D'Souza and the right canonize Benedict Arnold?

Posted by: Garak | September 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

so the author's defense is to say "OK, all the facts are wrong, or don't support my thesis in any event, but it's just a piece of speculation anyway, and I like the conclusion, so facts don't matter."

sounds typical of the right.

Posted by: JoeT1 | September 16, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Amen, jjcrocket14! Never has there been a bigger liar in the WH than the current one. Until Obummer opens his records, the rest of the world will think what they want to think. No one can prove Forbes magazine wrong because we only have Obummer lies saying he is wrong.

Posted by: annnort | September 16, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow, the crackpots are out in force today. The President of the United States a Marxist? What would you call the American people that elected him and still support him (anywhere from 45 - 55% of the voting public?

Do you people really believe all this crap you say about the President of the United States or is it just a cynical way of whipping up rage for political purposes.

... really, I'd like to know!

Posted by: JayUSA | September 16, 2010 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Din D'Zoo claims to be Americanised having crawled out of India after 17 years. I fully agree with him. He would be classed by the black Americans as belonging to the very American tribe called coconut.

Posted by: cj51 | September 16, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Did Pres. Obama's father publish (for example, a dissertation) or lecture? Otherwise - how does anyone know he had any "ideology" - and if, so, what it was? I'd like to know those facts - not "psychological theory".

Posted by: jqw3827 | September 16, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Isn't D'Souza one of those Indians who are stealing American jobs? Just how tight is he with the outsourcing industry? How involved is he with Kashmir terrorists? He is from India, after all.

Posted by: Garak | September 16, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Gun 313: It a stunning thing, to see an individual like Obama in the White House, so lacking in truth and fact.

And which Republican politician is so full of truth and fact that you would rather see her/him in the white house instead? Sarah Palin?,Newt?

You people are so irrational, you wouldn't know a good thing if it hit you in the face.

Posted by: kukula1 | September 16, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

What crap!!

Loony talk for loony people.

This is simply slander.

Posted by: usaf-vet | September 16, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

More of the usual right-wing, Big Business pap.

Posted by: jckdoors | September 16, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

But, Why is The Anti-Christ Obama Destroying America. If you truly want to know what is going on; Then you will have to accept these things as the TRUTH. Once you understand the following things; All things will be understood. So I tell you Obama is Satan on Earth, Lawless One, or what ever else you want to call this Demonic Figure. His words describe him, He is a False Hope, If you listen to him you will love him. He carries a Bow without an Arrow. He will conquer all through his speech, his false hoods will capture all who sit and listen to him.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
11And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Posted by: makom | September 16, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

How could anyone claim that it is exceptional for an American to be against colonialism? One wonders where Dinesh D'Souza went to primary school. Of course, in the mouth of Newt Gingrich and probably also Steve Forbes the underlying subtext is the focus on Kenya and a message of racism. Still it is hard to believe that even Gingrich or Forbes would stand up for a message in favor of colonialism. But when Gingrich talks about American exceptionalism, I guess that is what he means. Perhaps he wants to defend slavary too.

Posted by: dnjake | September 16, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Steve Forbes didn't have to reach too far into his rich slave-owner heritage for this one.

Posted by: GarrisonLiberty | September 16, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

D'Moron's book will be a best-seller. Anyone who bought the idiot Palin's book will buy this piece of garbage too.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 16, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Fact is, code words aside, we have many in our midst who think Obama should be the President's valet and not the President. Despite the Beck, "old white peoples rally," America is changing. Creating opportunities for all Americans and bringing the USA up to the standards of developed nations for health care access for all Americans, that's the "socialism," and anti-colonialism the Fox News minions accuse Obama of. If it's to cut taxes for the top 2%, spend money on wars, cut-off unemployment benefits, or gut Social Security, it's the "pro-business" Wall Street agenda of Newt, D'Souza and the other rabid right wing hacks now allied to stop Obama.

Posted by: magnifco1000 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

100% INHERITED WEALTH PUBLISHER STEVE FORBES is the perennial conservative GOP presidential candidate who determines what is published in what was once a legitimate business news magazine.
D'Souza -- got his start in the Reagan White House.
Have any of these people noticed.
The U.S. Treasury professional auditors reported this week that federal spending in the first full fiscal year of Obama/Biden, dropped 8% from the last year of Bush/Cheney rule.
OOOPS!! These spending liberals embarrassing the GOP again.
Remember, Jan. 2009, Obama/Biden inherited the worst economic disaster since Hoobert Heever, 80 years ago. Hoobert Heever -- Republican right. FDR, the Democrat who lead this nation out of depression, with six million men on public works jobs when WWII started. [Those militaryily organized CCC workers formed the nucleus of the overnight army which stopped the Japanese in the South Pacific.]
All Obama/Biden have done is:
End offensive combat operations in Iraq and remove the vast bulk of our troops;
Beef up our forces against the Taliban and Al Qaeda where the original terrorists live, while getting heavy armoured vehicles and equipment to those combat troops;
Secure passage ofRepublican Teddy Roosevelt's concept for Health Care Reform, after ten presidents failed to gain passage, just since WWII.
By the end of this year, Insurance Companies with executives being paid BILLIONs, can no longer deny coverage for preexisting conditions or end coverage because policy holders get sick or are injured;
Secure passage of tax credits for companies which bring jobs from China to the U.S, and tax credits for small businesses to expand, buy capital equipment, build plants and otherwise provide jobs:
Prepare for the end of those RICH MAN'S TAX CUTS, while expanding tax relief for small business and the middle class taxpayers;
FAILURE, along with stopping the BUSH caused recession and getting two wars under control, with intelligent military planning by the military, instead of extreme religious doctrine -- Obama/Cheney have accomplished more in less than two years than any GOP president has within the past 160 years.
Two BUSH Family admnistratins left this nation $12-TRILLION in debt, kept us at war in Panama, Grenada, Lebanon, Serbia, Iraq, Somalia, etc. with more than 25 years of individual combat operations.
B/C put into place the Gulf deep water oil and gas exploration and basically DESIGNED the BP Horizon mess, where there was not even the required issuance of permits, or environmental inspections.
Obama/Cheney have been stalled in getting qualified managers into place throughout the government by GOP obstruction, leaving many management positions vacant, or with GOP political appointees in place -- comparable to Quarter Horse Brown, who managed the Katrina Relief fiasco.
But Forbes says, FORGET THE TEXAS DRUNK AND HALLIBURTON CHENEY, blame Obama for all the GOP's mistakes and screw ups.

Posted by: bigsurmac1 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse


"Have I mentioned yet that my father was a Kenyan Muslim?"

Barry the incompetent boob Obama

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

He's the president, shut up and deal with whatever like when the other white men were in office and screwing up and down for the last 200+ years.

Posted by: gman54 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

He's the president, shut up and deal with whatever like when the other white men were in office and screwing up and down for the last 200+ years.

Posted by: gman54 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

He's the president, shut up and deal with whatever like when the other white men were in office and screwing up and down for the last 200+ years.

Posted by: gman54 | September 16, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

what kind of non-sensical analysis is that when Obama had hardly seen his father? It is kind of halucination by the author and the hypocirte Mr. Gingrich who never fails to prove his lack of intellectuality!

Posted by: HazelW | September 16, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact,"

So what else is normal. There can't be a more fitting item to go along with a root canal.

Posted by: chamateddy | September 16, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Like Obama and D'Souza, Henry Luce, the publisher of Time and Life magazines, also spent the early years of his life outside the United States mainland. His first experience here was as a 15 year-old student at a private, Connecticut boarding school.

Posted by: blasmaic | September 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I cannot imagine anyone living in a colonialized country not wanting it to be free! Certainly, citizens of the U.S. didn't wait for England to grant freedom, thus the revolutiionary war! Robert Gibbs is right.

Posted by: betty1522 | September 16, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

It is entirely proper to speculate on who and what Obama is, since he has, by executive order, sealed ALL OF HIS PAST INCLUDING HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND SCHOOL TRANSCRIPTS.

Liberals didn't see this as a bad thing and the liberal media painstakingly covered Obama's but for the last 2 years.

If Obama doesn't like what is thought of him and how we colored in his background, prove everyone wrong and release all his records to the American People. Otherwise, shut up!

I for one, do not consider Obama an American since every one of his policies and bills sent to Congress, proves that he is totally anti-American, anti free-markets and in lockstep with the Progressive and Communists in Congress, who have been trying to destroy the United States of America, for the last 100 years.

Now with the Delaware primary winner, O'Donnell, it has become quite clear that the DemocRats and the Republicants are in collusion and pretty much they are all Progressives. With Obama in office, all of these traitors are working hand in hand to really make the Progressives dreams of a total Socialist country come true.

SO OBAMA, COME CLEAN OR YOUR CHARACTER WILL FOREVER BRAND YOU AS A USURPER AND A TRAITOR.

IN THE MEANTIME, VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Posted by: aaniko | September 16, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D has Indian genes. Back home in India he is equated with subhumans. being a Brahmin I would have to wash myself if I shook his hand. And I would.

Paki D has his phobias. In India they berate him as a Ding. Here in the US he is Uncle Tom.

Another reason why immigration is vital to the US. Even homegrown children of immigrants tend to get assimilated in the general banal mediocrity.

Posted by: Naradar1 | September 16, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Well it took a president with colonial heritage to have the guts to identify PREDATORY CAPITALISM as America's and the World's problem, Congratulation. Those who have ruined the world's economy accept no blame for what they have done, they simply appeal to bigotry with the assured knowledge the American people will focus on that aspect of the article and over look the fact that GREED AND DECEIT are at the root of the economic collapse . American wealth was created by inventors and genuine businessmen to whom the nation and the whole world OWE A DEBT OF GRATITUDE . This generation of paper pushers and money changers have nothing in common with the original spirit of enterprise which made America great.

Posted by: jracforr | September 16, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Ugly racism. So easy to express on comment boards.

Posted by: AnnsThought | September 16, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Why even bother to acknowledge the article? Walk away. Lowering yourself to the level of a small time journalist is crazy. Luckily the WH can't stop taking the bait.

Posted by: RoseKelly | September 16, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Wow, and this is just an ad article for D'Souza's book coming out soon, and the White House got it on the front page. He'll make millions now, since millions will want to read it. The White House couldn't have helped him more. Just in time for the election!

Posted by: nofreelunch | September 16, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the truth about the Liar in Chief is always refreshing to hear.
Old Robert (I never tell the truth) Gibbs, just keeps at it.
Then they wonder why only idiots and fools believe them.

Posted by: gto582000 | September 16, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Our great country was founded on anti-colonialism.

Posted by: jake14 | September 16, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

This story is very timely, because the American people are presumably still interested in learning what makes Barack Obama tick.

By this time next year we will all be focused on learning more about Obama's potential successors, and no one will care about these psychological analyses of the lame duck Obama.

Posted by: JBaustian | September 16, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The word low is rapidly losing its meaning. Seems like there is no bottom to filth. To the stupid commentators that pretend not to see the racism, let them read what the French fascists of the 1930s said and wrote about the Jewish Prime Minister Leon Blum. Strikingly similar. But they would probably agree with the fascists...

Posted by: Makhno1 | September 16, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I want to know:

Is George W. Bush a secret Muslim?

Former President George W. Bush came under attack Monday from Fox News, which accused him of having ties to the Islamic world and of perhaps being a secret Muslim. While the former president has stayed out of the limelight since leaving office, critics contend that his silence only proves their theories correct.

The fervor began when Fox’s morning show “Fox and Friends” reported that Bush’s family had close ties to the Islamic world, particularly with Saudi Arabia.

“I just learned that, get this, George Bush senior actually led a whole bunch of countries to war to protect Saudi Arabia when he was president. Of course the Bushes have always been close to big oil,” Fox Newsmodel Gretchen Carlson reported Monday. “Was the young George W. Bush indoctrinated into the Islamic faith during that time? Some people are asking this question. By ‘some people’ I mean the people on this show, our scriptwriters and the folks who issue our talking points each morning.”

Carlson’s co-host Steve Doocy joined in the echo chamber, asserting that this information “raises questions” about where the younger Bush’s loyalties lie.

“The younger President Bush inflamed the Islamic world by invading Iraq on false pretenses. Our own intelligence agencies said this made us less safe and served as a rallying cry for Al Qaeda and other extremists,” Doocy said. “Did George W. Bush do this to help out Al Qaeda? Does George W. Bush hate America? Does he want to install a Muslim caliphate here in the U.S.? Some say the former president has some explaining to do.” (continued…)

http://www.thechicagodope.com/2010/09/06/is-george-w-bush-a-secret-muslim/

Posted by: Mikeystyle | September 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I have never seen such a major politician so outwardly sensitive about anything negative said about him as Obama. The guy has nothing but negative things to say about any of his political opponents, but really breaks down into a soft little milquetoast when someone comes at him. If he put half the energy into running the country that he puts into controlling his image (and his golf game) we might not be so bad off right now.

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs and Obama,

Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Posted by: bryanmanalyst | September 16, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

#########################################

We're talking about the gutter and all the conservative slimeballs who crawl in it.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

This doesn't surprise me one bit. This India guy is just like his Governor Brother from Louisiana Bobby. Say something negative about the Black President. What they seem to forget is after Obama is out of office. Attention will be focus back on white American jobs being sent to India. Then its back to bashing the India people. Such Dumb DONKEYS. Its boggles me how everybody jumps on the bandwagon to get some points. Most people can’t afford to buy a Forde’s magazine and the others don’t care.

Posted by: access11 | September 16, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz is so liberal and such a puppet of the administration that it is laughable that anyone woul dtak his comments about this artilce as serious.

Gibbs and Kutz colaborate on their values and how to address the country.

Posted by: WillyP | September 16, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

If this is the kind of crap that passes as journalism, Forbes needs to bag it. It is nothing but propaganda. Obama's "invisible father provides inspiration" for his political thinking. That's a bit of a willful stretch. For this idiot Indian to compare himself to Obama is an even further stretch. Puhlease.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | September 16, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Objectively speaking,D'Souza is a false witness and his "theory" is prepostouros based on one fabrication on top of another.

Anti-colonialism is irrelevant to Obama and forcing it upon him is simply a gross fabarication.

Still, on its own, anti-colonialism is not a stigma:the great American Revolution was instigated to get rid of and eridicate British colonialism.

There is no limit as to where the GOP extremists would go to try and distort Obama;this is the same party that supported a war of choice based on false pretext on Iraq which killed some five thousand Americans and cost $ billions of US taxpayers money.

D'Souza,gingric, palin, krauthammar and their ilk have no scruples at all.

Posted by: asizk | September 16, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

"Did they not fact-check this at all, or did they fact-check it and just willfully ignore it?" he asks.

Perhaps Forbes is trying to become like the New York Times.

Posted by: AdamLS2 | September 16, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Or it could be that he and his wife are hitting the bottle a little too hard again.

_________________
From the article: "Gingrich told the Daily Caller that his own remarks 'seemed to touch some kind of irrational nerve on the left.'"
__________________________________

Yes, Gingrich touched nerves all right: those who favor a least of modicum of truth and rational thought in discourse had their nerves touched (the fools, they, apparently . . .). But I don't think it is those with the raw nerve ends (in this case) who are the irrational ones.

Newt Gingrich is a bright and articulate guy. Too bad he has a very casual relationship with the truth. May he never, ever regain the levers of power.

Posted by: sassafrasnewport | September 16, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I find this article in Forbes and the upcoming book a fascinating take on Obama and his views. The real question about Obama is why does he surround himself with the likes of Andy Stern, George Soros, Cass Sunstein, etc.? I don’t think Obama has any control over the White House and policies; he is a puppet for the “white men” controlling him.

Posted by: dpunty | September 16, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama's first act as Prez was to insult Britain by returning the bust of Winston Churchill.

Obama is entirely unAmerican in his beliefs and his upbringing.

Technically, he's an illegal alien, too.

Posted by: maliknidal | September 16, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Kurtz. If Hawaii is part of the American mainstream, I'm Don Ho. And, Columbia Journalism Review needs to take a good hard look in their funhouse mirror before they start slinging mud in ANY direction - even straight up as appears to be this case.

Posted by: LieToMe | September 16, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Hey, if Obama is so proud of his father and wrote about him in dreams from his father, he ought to take the criticism that flows from that relationship. He opened the door.

Posted by: sladenyv1 | September 16, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

wouldn't have struck such a nerve if there weren't grains of truth in the article.

the thing is ... no one knows who obama is or what he believes. sure there are the caricatures of "hope" and "change" ... but really, what drives this guy? we may've just gotten a glimpse.

Posted by: Waffle1 | September 16, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

jjcrocket14: You mean elitists like Dinish D'Souza, who for the life of me, doesn't seem to have held a real job at anytime in his life.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

sassafrasnewport wrote: "For this idiot Indian to compare himself..."

That's blatantly racist. You're exposed.

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Where was Howard Kurtz when Vanity Fair recently printed verifiable LIES about Sarah Palin?

Where has Kurtz been as media outlets across the country have lied about Palin?

Curious that.

Your silence speaks volumes, Mr. Kurtz.

Posted by: etpietro | September 16, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I have a theory that everyone who works at Forbes could be an alien from Jupiter and is really here to destroy the planet.

--and my theory has as much credence and basis in fact as this clown.

Posted by: Mikeystyle | September 16, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Hee hee hee. So much anger from the open minded and tolerant libs. This analysis by DeSouza must touch much closer to home than I originally thought. How nice of the WH to get all spun up and defensive thus elevating the situation. Just like all the administration and media elevated the FL Koran burner. If the article was off base the WH never would have bothered to dignify it. Thankfully we now know it is right on target! Have a happy November 2 libs!

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

I would image it be hard to tell the viewpoint of anyone unless you sit down and talk/interview them.

This is just more of what media has become, opinionated stories that make charges with little or no facts.

This will only hurt our country and future Presidents. The left I am sure knows what a pay back is.

Then the question becomes, what gets done for the country and the middle class who's been taking a beaten for 30 years and counting while the well off have gotten richer at their expense.

Just think between 2001-2009 what the middle class lost. Jobs, 401K's, Pension Plans, and the final nail home value.

All happened under George Bush and Republicans. Does this not sink in? This all was in play and gaining steam before Obama even won.

Was it not the Republicans that called the middle class a bunch of whiners. Nuff said of their attitude towards the majority of this country.

The people most affected are those who fall for this type of cheap slash and burn porn journalism.

It is irresponsible no matter they be a Republican or Democrat. We need to have higher standards of what we expect by those who are lucky to live in a country where this BS is allowed.

Posted by: pjaud | September 16, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

A must read article. Explains the many head scratching moves Obama has made and why he made them. It is not an article of innuendo, but of insight into who our POTUS really is and what he really wants for America.

Posted by: pancakehouse | September 16, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza is typical of the drivel that passes for intellectual discourse now in conservatrive fantasy land. There is nothing to discus with people this delusional. It's like talking to the mentally challanged. Smile and say there but for the grace of God go I.

Posted by: kchses1 | September 16, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

One would think that, Dinesh D'souza, being born in a former British colony (India) and now living in a former British colony (United States) would be pro-anti-colonialist.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Yep, so proud of his father who abandoned him.

But his Grandmother who raised him, cared for him, and was actually there for him? She's just a "typical white woman".

Enough said about where Mr. Obama's values lie.

Posted by: NelsonMuntz | September 16, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Americans are such sheepish people; they believe anything and vote on sound bites rather than the issues. Who cares what religion he is or anyone for that matter? Clearly there is still a racial divide in this country and those that scream "I want my country back" should pause and realize it belonged to the natives before you got here. Long live Obama and his presidency.

Posted by: Gooddad | September 16, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

There are oh so many things wrong with everything D'Souza and Gingrinch and their hacks are saying that I don't know where to start. Obama is a supposed to be a socialist while he is supposedly bailing out big business at the expense of working people? You can't have it both ways. Obama is supposed to be anti-colonialist, whereas America is not? So are they saying that America opposed independence for third world nations? I was always taught the opposite. I don't recall Truman Eisenhower or Kennedy providing any support for Europe's efforts to hold onto their empires. Does that make the war in Iraq a colonial war for oil? Also isn't the Import Export Bank in the business of making loans? Isn't a loan to make a nation oil rich a good loan with guaranteed repayment with interest? How can a someone whose father abandoned the family when he was two and only saw him once at age 10 be influenced by that father? My father left when I was five and the only influence he has had was to make me hate him and everything he stands for. Sounds like this article is on a par with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the Trilateral Commission, New World Order theories, the invalid Hawaiian Birth certificate theory, and the muslim who has spent every Sunday in a Christian Church theory. It is something concocted by a crazy to attract other crazies, which you would have to be a crazy to give any credence to.

Posted by: joeller | September 16, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

@Gooddad

It's no more your country than mine. But one thing is fo' sho' - it ain't Obama's.

Posted by: NelsonMuntz | September 16, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Who is more American: Obama or D'Suza the cow and snake worshipping heathen who was born and raised in lower cast India?

Posted by: asizk | September 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Let's just make an Oompa-Lumpa the Speaker of the House so BP can be apologized to again.

Posted by: motogp46 | September 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I am laughing my arse off every time a lib comments about how "anti-colonialism" is ok, because, hey, didn't we kick out the Britts?

Dumb dumbs, the term has a different meaning now. Although I probably shouldn't have told you, since reading your comments has been very entertaining!

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

And pjaud, at appears you see the world in the same way as Obama, and it hits a nerve when the truth hits so close to home. You and your liberal brethren always flinch and complain when the truth is presented to you. Sad that facts aren't important to you people. Keep on railing against the rich. You are already brainwashed and probably receive some government assistance already, right?

Posted by: pancakehouse | September 16, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich said his own remarks "seemed to touch some kind of irrational nerve on the left"?

No, Newt, your irrational remarks touched a rational nerve on the left, precisely because your remarks were so jaw-droppingly absurd!

Care to explain, Newt, why "anti-colonialist" is a bad thing, and tie in with the founding of our country?

Posted by: hitpoints | September 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Someone bring in a gaggle of Ducks and a bunch of Therapists. It's shocking how many Americans have fallen off the deep end. Walking around talking nonsense, Quacks everywhere. Many of us didn't like Bush but we didn't accuse of him of being given to Bush Sr by aliens. It amazing how when the country goes down hill a little some people fall off the edge of the flat earth. Maybe after the next election, those on the right will be willing to meet us within a thousand miles of the middle. The right is so far off they are passing the moon right now.

Posted by: WestOfTheMississippi | September 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

NO FACTS, MAKES UP THINGS, NOT TO BE BELIEVED

THAT IS EXACTLY HOW I LOOK AT ABCCBSNBCPBSNPRCNNCNBCMSNBC.......

FUNNY HOW THESE LIARS AT THOSE COMPANIES CALL OTHERS NAMES........

THEY WOULDN'T KNOW THE TRUTH IF IT BEAT THEM.............

SO IF THEY SAY THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG MEANS THAT IT MUST BE RIGHT ON...........

Posted by: CATHERINE10000 | September 16, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I look forward to reading this magazine and article!

Disappointing to see Obama & Co come out with yet another public press conference just to scold and whine about a magazine article.

Truth is, we will never truly know who or what Obama is. We can only continue to guess at his true allegiances as he muddles along in his double-talking, indecisive presidency.

Posted by: SamRon1 | September 16, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

You always know when you hit the truth. The left starts screaming and yelping like a puppy with pulled ears!

Posted by: ricardo4max | September 16, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza dated Ann Coulter?

That alone should be enough to establish that he is crazy.

Posted by: janouzpoha | September 16, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Remember folks: D'Souza blamed Abu Ghraib "sexual immodesty of liberal America" and that Abu Ghraib reflected "the values of a debauched liberalism run amok."

D'Souza is a hack and a hitman.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's argument starts with his goal--to caricature Obama as anti-business AKA Marxist--and then the "research" and argument fall into place regardless of how tortured the process.
The real question is how an editor (and believe me it passed through the highest levels at Forbes)thought this was worth featuring as a cover story unless the editor also started with the same preconceived conclusion.
As with the WSJ, whose editorial pages always have been polluted by ideologues, now the news section is starting to show the same skew.
Unfortunately any challenge by the White House to Forbes' publisher and editors will be cast as censorship.

Posted by: gratianus | September 16, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Why is D'suza so pro colonialism? Did not his indian folks fight hard British Colonialism as American heros did?

Is it possible that D'souza is a hypocrite? And where did he get his name and his religion? Is by any chance from Portugees colonialism?

Posted by: asizk | September 16, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to the Mass American Media for doing such a dis-service to the American people by only NOW coming around to tell us the truth about who Obama is, how he thinks and what he really wants for America.

Way to go Media, we have you to blame for this disastrous presidency...

Posted by: SirLoinofBeef | September 16, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

This is not a difficult dilemma to resolve. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, chances are that it isn't a chicken.

Posted by: Lpar | September 16, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs is meeting Thursday afternoon with Forbes's Washington bureau chief, Brian Wingfield, to discuss his objections.

Doesn't Gibbs have other things to do? Apparently not.

Posted by: trumeau | September 16, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The author of the article only said what I, and an economist friend, have been saying all along. Obama is stuck in the 1950's, which is just about where third world education was when he was receiving his education in Indonesia.

Posted by: 2426 | September 16, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

last i checked this whole country was formed on anti-colonialism so it just makes Obama a patriot

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | September 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

About as dopey as it gets . . . didn't we all adopt anti-colonialism from our fore fathers. Or do these people still worship King George and merry old England?

Posted by: SarahBB | September 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

the ONLY people constantly bringing up "obama is a muslim" is the media !! those liberals who think it is their duty to shape our opinions of ourselves do incessant polling on a distraction from the real issues. i see little point in arguing with someover over what they believe, especially on something like what god they believe in, but it's hard to fault people for wondering in this instance (especially since the media always asks the question). The man only ever belonged to one church that seemingly had little in common with what and who we think Obama is - and he has since broken ties with it in a very public way. He denounced roundly and repeatedly his "spiritual advisor". If this is really a problem (I say no) then its definately of Obama's own making for joining that farcical church.

Posted by: dummypants | September 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Thin skinned leftists usually can't stand the truth. Odumbo and his democrat enablers need to be shoveled out, like the manure they are.

Posted by: LarryG62 | September 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Amen, jjcrocket14! No one can prove Forbes magazine wrong because we only have Obummer lies saying he is wrong.

Posted by: annnort | September 16, 2010 12:33 PM
_______________________________________
You have things a little bit backwards my friend. The job of a reputable journalist or magazine and newspaper editor is to insure the facts are correct BEFORE you publish. Not publish something and challenge folks to prove the content wrong. The onus is on the publisher to make sure they have it right.

Posted by: army164 | September 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm amazed Forbes would publish a carry a fatuous piece like this. I still remember when it was a business publication.

Posted by: jack824 | September 16, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Want a little background on our friend Dinesh - read this link. It looks like he has a big gripe against black people and would like to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

http://www.campusprogress.org/articles/know_your_right-wing_speakers_dinesh_dsouza

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Well at least we are getting someone to come out and talked about what ,in my opinion, is obama's skewed thinking.
I saw a picture of obama when he was younger and had met his father at the airport for the one visit they would have during obama's growing up years.
You could see quite a happy little boy clutching his father's hands. From the happy look on little obama's face that never seeing his father again may have caused little obama to grow up to be the perhaps, mal adjusted, angry, ungrounded individual that I believe he is. He listened to hate speech from rev. wright for 20 years. He appears to have married another angry person, like himself. I watched her campaign and she can turn on the ghetto in .2 seconds. That kinda told me where her head is so I don't trust her either.
Anti-colonialism? Anti-business?
He certainly seems to fit the mold.
He doesn't know how to talk to a bunch of conservatives that grew up with the work ethic, taking care of themselves and not feeding at the public trough, like he and his mother.

Posted by: tjmlrc | September 16, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The biggest shame about this vitriolic, idiotic piece of tripe is the fact that Forbes had the "Audacity" to publish. I guess they are part of the Tea Party Express" run amok!!!!!!!!

Posted by: gaintellectual | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Does anything the far right believes have a basis in fact?

Posted by: rapchat1 | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If this account is wrong, then I think Gibbs, et al should propose some alternate theories. If not the anti-colonial Kenyan heritage, than what is the explanation for Barry's incessant America bashing and anti-capitalist policies?

- The Columbia/Harvard brainwashing of the late 70's?
- An unhappy childhood away from a traditional family and Christian community?
- Indoctrination into the leftist, anti-American ideologies of Ayres, Dorn and Wright?
- Deep-seated anti-Semitism fueled by a sincere sympathy for Muslims and sponsorship by self-proclaimed Nazi sympathizers (Soros)?
- A mediocre intellect coupled with an unchallenging and unremarkable career prior to his current position?
- Or all of the above?

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

The author argues that President Obama’s political philosophy can be traced to Obama’s father’s anticolonialist views. Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America.
If we’re not allowed to try to inquire about what motivates the President of the United States based on his life history and facts (Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, various associations, socialist world view etc) and frankly his actions of the past 20 months that we've all seen with our own eyes then what's the sense in freedom of speach

Posted by: RobInNewHampshire | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

last i checked this whole country was formed on anti-colonialism so it just makes Obama a patriot
*********

colonists fighting for independence and natives fighting against colonization are very different.

Americans were colonists first and foremost. And, honestly, it turned out pretty well for most of the world.


Posted by: dummypants | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

It is such a stupid article that it is beyond refutation. It's just another swift-boating bit of political drivel. There are more important things to do than to try to argue about it. Anyone who would give credence to this junk is not going to be convinced otherwise by mere reason.

Posted by: frodot | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Seriously? Forbes PRINTED that garbage?

It's not racist, it's just ignorant and tries to MAKE facts out of theories that only support whatever twisted agenda this man has.


Posted by: Kolchak | September 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse


Yellow journalism from a yellow journalist.

Is this a great country or what?

Why bother discussing issues, now that the Right has gone full-on nuclear to try and discredit the very idea of an Obama presidency.

I guess Republicans really don't want my vote, ever.

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Why do liberals have such thin skin?

Posted by: wussupdoc | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Far right strategy: once you've decided that Obama needs to be branded a socialist, then it doesn't matter that anything negative about him isn't substantiated--after all, he personifies evil, so lying is OK, even patriotic.

Posted by: bitterblogger | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Barack, no number of carefully choreographed "press conferences" with hand picked attendees and pre-screened questions are going to plaster over the disastrous consequences of your re-distribution economics. No sensible entrepreneur, spelled "job-creator", is going to commit to further capital investments with the anvil of your stifling Socialist policies hanging over their heads. Our Nation was once enamored with you slickster readings from your ubiquitous teleprompters; but -no more-. America has seen thru your attempts to remold our society into your coveted Marxist image; and, have resoundly rejected your Maoist agenda. It's exceedingly difficult to believe that even the most gullible of your enablers takes you seriously on ANY topic any longer. God bless our Constitution and the America of our "FOUNDERS". The greatest blessing that will be be bestowed upon America this coming November will be for your total Marxist agenda, and that of your Socialist interlopers, to collapse on its own demerit. Only then will our economy , relieved of your Marxist millstone, rebound and once again bear the fruits of the most vibrant free-enterprise system in the history of mankind. The sleeping giant that is represented by the descendants of former American patriots, who molded our free-enterprise system with their own blood and toil, are about to inundate you and your enablers with an unprecedented rejection at the ballot box this coming November. We are passionately loyal to this sacred land that we so proudly call "America"; and, will repel any attempts by you or others to "fundamentally transform" our cherished democratic republic, as you have so vociferously proclaimed. You may not yet recognize it; but, you and your radical leftist policies are about to be castigated to the overflowing trash-heap of history. Greg Neubeck

Posted by: gneubeck | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

YGBSM! Bush endured EIGHT YEARS of the same and worse from not only pundits, but mainstream media and a fringe population that threatened to kill him, wished he were dead, burned him in effigy, and half-baked publicity seeking, and from 3rd rate country singers who publicly slammed him to world audiences. At least he had the dignity to ignore all that and press on with his job. THIS president comes off as no more that a crybaby who has a dirty thumb and his press secretary seems nothing but a wet nurse for presidential ego. Grow up Mr. Gibbs. Mr. President...if you can't take the heat...well you know.

Posted by: PanhandleWilly | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The author of the article only said what I, and an economist friend, have been saying all along. Obama is stuck in the 1950's, which is just about where third world education was when he was receiving his education in Indonesia.

Posted by: 2426 | September 16, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

#####################################

Am glad that you and your "economist friend" are so up-to-date - we can blame you for the collapse of our financial system during the Bush Administration.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

This so typically left wing.

First, D'Souza acknowledged The Obamantion's "invisible father."

Second, D'Souza doesn't say The Obamantion learned Kenyan anti-colonialism from his father...only that he adopted the belief. So it doesn't matter that The Obamanation's father left the family when The Obamanation was but two-years old or that he died almost 30 years ago.

The Obamantion is clearly anti-American, he clearly believes it is better to apologize around the world than to take a pro-American stance.

The Obamantion is obviously a socialist and obviously the worst president in history.We can only hope that Republicans can offer something better than McCain/Palin in 2012.

Posted by: joelinpdx | September 16, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

========================
Jesus Christ.......we have been putting up with LYING and Misleading stories for DECADES from our corrupt liberal/progressive MSM wolfpack press, like the WASHINGTON POST

Our Great Divider-in-Chief can go to hell along with Gibbs.........

Paybacks are hell......

Posted by: allenridge | September 16, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

FORBES: always on the lookout for a C- undergraduate paper to publish.

Posted by: rusty3 | September 16, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with being "anti-colonial"? Bush was attacked for being too pro-colonial or pro-business. It comes with the job. People are free to say/think/publish whatever they want.

Posted by: forgetthis | September 16, 2010 1:32 PM | Report abuse

It would be a contradiction in the theory of developmental psychology
If what a person experienced following his/her birth
Should be found to have had no influence on her/his development--
Of empirical evidence to support such a view, there's clearly a dearth.

A fellow (or gal) who has a radical father (or mom), for example,
Likely tends to pick up a non-mainstream view
Of the local, national and international scene;
And what normal folks in their lives tend to do.

It is not kosher, or so Mr. Gibbs seems to think,
Even to theorize about effects on Obama
That may have accrued from a parental heritage quite obviously atypical;
Especially for leading actors in our National Reality Drama.

Based on what is known about human development,
It seems, indeed to be highly un.like.ly,
That he emerged from the bosom of such an unusual family, tabula rosa--
If so, it would clearly be classifiable as a developmental a.nom.a.ly.

Folks (like Mr. Gibbs) who take umbrage at the publication of theoretical observations
Tend to do a disservice to the advancement of science--
Especially that classified as "political",
On whose tenets, for maintaining his leading role in our drama, Obama has placed his reliance.


Posted by: Gonzage1 | September 16, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

How can the White House get upset if anyone insists something is true even if it is not...when the same person promises to be a non-partisan honest open and transparent leader who has all the experience and knowledge needed to be President...same person who demands that a Healthcare bill bill allow people to absolutely KEEP their existing insurance, that the NEW bill will save money and reduce their expenses while covering an additional 20 million uninsured Americans, and will do away with pre-existing conditions and allow kids to stay on the parent's insurance through age 26....and then when the bill is passed....NONE OF THIS IS TRUE.

This White House has a big liar for a press secretary, and his lies border on treasonous fraud over the nation.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Why do liberals have such thin skin?

Posted by: wussupdoc
*****************************************
The last thing a con man wants is to be "found out."
So he gets angry and gets his henchmen fired up and it sets off a chain reaction.
If he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding anything?
Maybe it's time for you to show everything obama. Let the world know if you are honorable or a sneaky liar.

Posted by: tjmlrc | September 16, 2010 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who would believe anything Newt Gringrich has to say also believe he and the GOP "care" about middle Americans. What is wrong with being anti-colonial? Look at where that got us when Bush and Cheney tried to colonize Iraq. Let's pay more attention to America instead of trying to conquer the world.

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | September 16, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Howie,have you read Mr.D'souza's book?Honestly?Because his analysis fits perfectly.It explains why he sent back the bust of Winston Churchill(what a slap in the face),why he has treated the UK as a stepchild,why his economic policy seems anti-american-it all fits,perfectly.You should read the book,really.

Posted by: jhill51 | September 16, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

"Thou doth protest too much, methinks."

Posted by: rfpzzzzz | September 16, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it interesting that the libs are making incredibly savage and degrading racist remarks about an Indian-born American citizen?

No shortage of hypocrisy with Democrats and their sympathizers.

I can't wait to the hear all the racist and bigoted name-calling the Dems will be screeching on November 3rd! I will be loving every minute of it!

Posted by: VaPatriot | September 16, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

FORBES: always on the lookout for a C- undergraduate paper to publish.

Posted by: rusty3

I'm sure Obama could teach them a thing or two about C- undergraduate papers, no?

Posted by: wussupdoc | September 16, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

What's the point of making a big deal that Obama spent four years (age 6-10) in Indonesia? And only visited Pakistan for three weeks? How many American kids grow up overseas because their parents are military or diplomatic? Answer: a lot. I spent a total of 5 years in foreign countries while I was in school; of course, I was born in Cyprus where my father was posted and then live in Turkey, so maybe I should add four years. Does that disqualify me from running for office? What about kids who have a foreign-born parent? Should they be disqualified, especially if they don't come from a family where the father left when the kid was 2 years old? How many kids visit foreign countries during high school or college? Or maybe it matters which foreign country you visit or live in. D'Souza's a crackpot to even bring this up. It's pointless.

Posted by: epittelkau | September 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz did a reasonable job with this, but he failed to point out that this is par for the course when it comes to right-wing slime jobs. Obama has been treated worse than Clinton, but even back in the 90's conservative hacks were writing about how Clinton (and Hillary) killed Vince Foster, how Clinton had people in Arkansas murdered, how Clinton was a serial rapist, and so on.

Today, if you watch Fox News, you see many of the same kinds of lies, every single day on almost every show. And they are lies: just look at how they've turned Ayers into a serial murdering bomber with close ties to Obama.

I think it's great that Gibbs is standing up to politically-motivated liars such as D'Sousa. Somebody has to speak up, because the mainstream media will simply stand aside while they do their stenography.

Posted by: dougd1 | September 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Replying to:

"If we can believe that Obama sat in a church pew for 25 years and came away unaffected, we can believe that he spent little time among his non-American "roots" and yet was strongly affected. It is not the number of dots you can connect that matter; it is how strongly and deeply the individual identifies with his cultural, psychological, and intellectual influences that matters. D'Souza may not have connected enough dots to substantiate his argument. Doesn't mean he was not accurate in his overall assessment.

Posted by: geezer64 | September 16, 2010 12:29 PM"

Sorry, Geezer, but that's PRECISELY what it means. D'Souza not only did not connect the dots, but the dots are either factually wrong or deliberately distorted to mislead. It is crystal-clear that he started out with a thesis and then cherry-picked a few meager shreds of evidence supporting it--ignoring the mountains of facts that refute his ludicrous claims.

As Charadon correctly observed, the comments so far indicate the target demographic for this book. And what a sad commentary THAT is on the nature of political discourse in our country.

Posted by: DCSteve1 | September 16, 2010 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

As one of the institutions responsible for a singularly disgusting and twisted product - that is, the stuff spewed by the generation of journalists plaguing the American media right now - I guess Columbia should know. These ideologues are responsible for the election of a singularly disgusting regime that has infected the White House, the Senate and the House with an abominable anti-Americanism that is astonishing and hideous to probably 90% of Americans. Don't research that "fact" - it is my opinion, and I'm saying so because you people apparently can't tell the difference. Luckily we are looking at a new election soon, although for the presidency not soon enough. High crimes and misdemeanors abound. I can't wait for January, 2011.

Posted by: Sandra2012 | September 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Pacal6:"If this account is wrong, then I think Gibbs, et al should propose some alternate theories. If not the anti-colonial Kenyan heritage, than what is the explanation for Barry's incessant America bashing and anti-capitalist policies?
- The Columbia/Harvard brainwashing of the late 70's?
- An unhappy childhood away from a traditional family and Christian community?
- Indoctrination into the leftist, anti-American ideologies of Ayres, Dorn and Wright?
- Deep-seated anti-Semitism fueled by a sincere sympathy for Muslims and sponsorship by self-proclaimed Nazi sympathizers (Soros)?
- A mediocre intellect coupled with an unchallenging and unremarkable career prior to his current position?
- Or all of the above?
-----------------------------------------

Pascal6 - Your post is simply one big lie. Just because you believe some laughable nonsense does not make it a fact. Obama has not engaged in a bunch of "America bashing", and is not "anti-capitalist". Repeating and reposting such idiocy does not make it true. Sadly I doubt you even believe what you are posting, you just value undermining Obama over the truth or the health of the country.

Posted by: rapchat1 | September 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Must be true if it evoked such a violent outburst from the POTUS and Gibbsy!!! DEMS are scared silly about the spanking they see NOV. 2nd!!! America now knows what fundamentally changing America means and what they stand for!!!!!

Posted by: Jimbo77 | September 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

I suppose I should stop being appalled at some of the hateful comments about the President, but it still troubles me that for so many of the commenters, facts do not matter. For those who hate President Obama, the more outlandish and unconnected to reality the narrative becomes, the more they like it. That may be good for their political aspirations; it cannot be good for the country. It is interesting that none of the editors of FORBES is willing to comment on the article. They stand by the article, but they are not willing to defend it. Is there no sanity to be found in the insanity of the haters?

Posted by: gondola2 | September 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Coming from Forbes this makes good sense. What the Obama administration might be trying to do eliminate the preditorial nature of business in this country. Competition is great, free market is great but praying on Americans is down right un-American. The nerve being struck are businesses being held accountable for these actions. We see more and more businesses laying off people by using the economy as a way to rationalize their actions. Coreporate profits trending up and workers being asked to do the work of two and three. To all of those posting the "socialism" comments should go to a real socilaist country and get a taste. I would venture a guess that 99% of you haven't even been out of the country. Go Obama!

Posted by: Wizfan4ever | September 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's column makes a lot of sense, it explains the Obama apology tour and his view of American exceptionalism...that we aren't

Your review of the column is vapid and poorly written. You never meet D'Souza on the battlefield of ideas, you simply dismiss his with emotion and obfuscation.

Posted by: Cubby2Zeta | September 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's thesis would explain why the Anointed One had Churchill's bust removed from the Oval Office as one of his first acts.

Posted by: tpmillerconn | September 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately we will hopefully be deeply engaged in impeachment hearings next year at this time, and the impediments to "truth, justice and the American way" will be removed from office shortly thereafter.

Posted by: mwscott1999 | September 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Colonialism is the economic system where one nation subjugates and exploits the people and resources of another for profit. Historically, it resulted in horrific abuses of the colonized by the colonial power. Who would support such a system today?

Secondly, one can be anti-colonial and yet still be pro-business. Arguing otherwise endorses the point that supporting business requires support for exploitation and subjugation. Most businesses want no association with such anti-American values.

D'Souza's basic thesis is flawed, no matter whom he applies it to.

Posted by: truly1 | September 16, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I'd say the Columbia Journalism Review has it about right. I greatly regret that leaders in one of our major parties are latch on to all matter of crackpot ideas in an attempt to increase their political influence.

Posted by: dnice1 | September 16, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

" White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low.""

Well, it is. Its a new low in the number of media folks willing to help spread the propaganda of this Administration! The bags holding the lies are busting at the seems and people are seening the real Obamanation this Administration is, using Chicago Thug techniques of bribes, extortion, and controlling the press.

Posted by: REBEL-1 | September 16, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

My God, Gibbs and the liberal press hate criticism of Obama don't they? Where were they during the screams and insults hurled at Bush during his Presidency? Again, if you don't like the heat - get out of the kitchen.

Posted by: steven7753 | September 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what did d'Souza learn from his father over in "India", "Pakistan", or some other Asia country concerning his anti-colonial world views?

I find it quite disturbing that people of other minority cultures in this country have the freaking nerve's to question the views of the President because of his heritage, as if somehow they themselves believe that they are of the white moral majority social class.

Geez, what ignorance of our brown brother's and sisters and what ignorance of Steve Forbes to allow such an article to be printed.

I used to enjoy buying and reading Forbes magazine, but now it's turning into a low grade piece of trash for the Right-Wing rag.

Then again, maybe it always was... and I just didn't know it. Now I do.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I just canceled my Forbes subscriptions!

Posted by: starpopper | September 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

A word to Obama: if you can dish it out, you had better be prepared to take it.

Posted by: forgetthis | September 16, 2010 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I've read and listened to D'Souza and have found him to be intelligent, well reasoned and well spoken. His analysis is accurate and worthy of consideration.

As for the President and Mr. Gibbs; Me thinks they doth protest too much.

D'Souza has merely underscored what a great majority of Americans have suspected and come to understand about Mr. Obama - he does not embrace our values or desire for less government but seeks to supplant our desires with his own.

Yet, the president can not so simply expect us to believe his actions do not speak volumes about his true nature. As much as he attempts to deny what he really desires he also insults an electorate that grows more weary, impatient and unimpressed with life under his administration.

Let the avalanche of truth about Obama continue to fall until this president's value system, agenda and faithful party members are buried and unable to rise again. May Obama's legacy be such that America learns never to be fooled by the likes of his ideology again.

Posted by: dmacwired | September 16, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The vitriol and meanness that so called conservatives show towards this president so disgusting that I will not in a near future vote for a republican. It points towards some serious mental disorder more than anything else. Adios Republican party and hope you enjoy the lunes.

Posted by: caringmale69 | September 16, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: gun313

It a stunning thing, to see an individual like Obama in the White House, so lacking in truth and fact.

================================

It WAS. Before.

But this is the CHANGE he promised you.


Just like posting all potential bills 3 days before voting on them.

Suddenly the sky will fall if Congress doesn't vote first and then read what they voted on later.

My opinion: obama never knew his father (fact). He hasn't a clue what was in the old alcoholic's throught process.

Posted by: cibor | September 16, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It's absurd to state that Obama's childhood does not effect his thought process. As far as Obama being an anti Colonialist, aren't we all? However, Obama is anti Constitution, free market, capitalism and basically anti American. He is following the Cloward and Piven Plan to the letter. Do you libtards think that you will personally benefit from a Socilaist Society? Look at all Communist/Socialist regimes. There is a privledged elite that crushes and exploits the masses. Do you think the N. Korean leaders are starving like the masses. Oh yea, and how quick do you libtards think the Socialist govt. would crack your heads if you dared express a contrary view. Wake up....oh never mind. Congress in Nov and Obama goes home in 2012. Thankfully the majority of Americans now see the danger of Obama.

Posted by: isnrblog | September 16, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Forbes really abandoned the ranks of reputable publications with this one. We're all still waiting for D'Souza or Gingrich to explain how a father that Obama barely met managed to indoctrinate him in "Kenyan anti-colonialist doctrine", whatever that is supposed to be.

What it is supposed to be, of course, is one more sideways attempt to lodge in people's minds the innuendo of "Obama - foreign, sinister, unknown, NOT LIKE YOU" just as the dishonest tea party cowards have been trying to all along. It's not pure race-baiting - it's bigger than that of course - but it's also that in large part.

The argument has all the intellectual rigor of the birthers' fantasies. Forbes is done, among serious business readers. It's chosen to be a birther rag now. Pretty sad. I used to read it.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Let's see......We can't discuss Obama's birth, Obama's toddler years, Obama's youth, Obama's teenage years, Obama's young Adult years, his church, his Christian name, his Moslem name his political career, his family, his agenda,
what he said yesterday, what he'll say today or in the future.
Believe you me, I prefer not to use my valuable time discussing someone who made 5.5 million dollars last year telling me I'm rich at $250.000 dollars. I wish he would just go away, but the sad truth is he's the one who picked a fight with small business, his policies control all my taxes, my 401k, my healthcare & my retirement. Forbes is a great magazine, too bad no one at the WH ever reads or can add & subtract. At the end of the day, real math does not lie.....only power hungry politicians do.

Posted by: peterwoohoo | September 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh also thinks that American culture is directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You know, blame the victim rather than the criminal.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/09/the_inanity_of_dinesh_dsouza.php

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

How DARE these people insult our incompetent president!

Posted by: SeniorVet | September 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

rapchat1:

Fortunately, none of us need you to point us to examples of Obama's America bashing and anti-capitalism. Those are obvious and abundant.

Liberal denial of this is exactly why Barry continues to piss everyone off.

At the risk of giving away our secrets, here's a primer for your Democratic campaign:
- Americans aren't sorry for ending the Cold War and communism through economic and military influence
- Americans know that regulations and gov't welfare like Cap and Trade and Obamacare raise prices and kill jobs.
- Americans believe our Judeo-Christianity and Democracy are great things to be proud of.
- Americans don't like bowing to kings of other countries.

You can work with that I hope.

Tho

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

So it appears that Obama can't even withstand a little philosophical name-calling..

I distinctly remember people saying George Bush literrally "caused" hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans; likewise, that he caused the levees, which were built long before he was president, to fail on demand. The media reported such nonsense as if it was the gospel, while little or no mention was made of the then child-like actions and thinking of the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana. Did W send out his minions to b-slap magazines and news-casters? No, he showed himself a real leader BY IGNORING SUCH NONSENSE.

If Barry the Boob were half the man W was, and if he really considers this stuff to be nonsense, he'd focus on what's important and forget responding to writers and commentators. But no, a SINGLE magazine produces what he interprets to be a hit-piece and he goes bonkers. DeSouza must have hit pretty close to home to get the Great Oboob so worked up.

"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Didn't we all learn this at what, age 4? Oh yeah I forgot, Barry was in a foreign Muslim nation at age 4 where everyone starts rioting and shooting when somebody says boogedy-boogedy boo to Muhammed.

Gee, I never would have guessed why he reacts the way he does..

To close, boogedy-boogedy boo Muhammed!

Posted by: flintston | September 16, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

All the media are not telling you the facts about the requirments to be POTUS.

How else could a Natural born British subject like Obama was at his birth get elected?

Obama's own words not mine.

The legal requirement for that office calls for the office seeker to prove they are a Natural Born Citizen of the United States but only requires them to be a Citizen or a native Citizen to run for the office of A senator or house member.

Posted by: dixhistory | September 16, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Wait until Obama's kiddie book comes out...wonder what IT will reveal about how Obama's childhood resulting from a pre-marriage sexual encounter by a activist white girl with a married African native man who abandoned his wife and kids in Africa to go to school in the USA, and as an abandoned kid of mixed racial parents sent to be raised by a white grandparent in a lifestyle of privilege and as a black kid among mostly white peers affected his psycological ability to have normal American relationships with women and other races and societal orientations.

Will it show a person trying to compensate to the public by pretending parenting skills to his own children, although lacking any such experiences himself and having no personal understanding of the requirements of a mature, nurturing parent...or will it just be some kind of fairy tale about Hope and Change and everything works out just fine in the end no matter what? Maybe Gibbs could speculate on that before it comes out and folks decide to evaluate what his other writings tell about the author...assuming that HE IS the real author and not Bill Ayers.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Let's see......We can't discuss Obama's birth, Obama's toddler years, Obama's youth, Obama's teenage years, Obama's young Adult years, his church, his Christian name, his Moslem name his political career, his family, his agenda,
what he said yesterday, what he'll say today or in the future.
Believe you me, I prefer not to use my valuable time discussing someone who made 5.5 million dollars last year telling me I'm rich at $250.000 dollars. I wish he would just go away, but the sad truth is he's the one who picked a fight with small business, his policies control all my taxes, my 401k, my healthcare & my retirement. Forbes is a great magazine, too bad no one at the WH ever reads or can add & subtract. At the end of the day, real math does not lie.....only power hungry politicians do.

Posted by: peterwoohoo | September 16, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

#########################################

It's a free country - you can spread as many lies and innuendoes as you please. Our soldiers give their lives so that guys like you can spread slanders, distortions, and mud all over the place.

By the way, I'm glad that your taxes will go up next year - you deserve it.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

All the media are not telling you the facts about the requirments to be POTUS.

How else could a Natural born British subject like Obama was at his birth get elected?

Obama's own words that he was a British subject at his birth and not mine.

The legal requirement for that office calls for the office seeker to prove they are a Natural Born Citizen of the United States but only requires them to be a Citizen or a native Citizen to run for the office of A senator or house member.

Posted by: dixhistory | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Clearly the Forbes article referred to in this magazine is supported by real facts, and sure he is sarcastic and cynical. But isn't it great that we can have open discussions about the flaws of our administration? People who read this article at face-value are not smart. Check your facts!! But many of the facts in that article are fact. Clear and simple.

Posted by: elmartin | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dmacwired
D'Souza has merely underscored what a great majority of Americans have suspected and come to understand about Mr. Obama - he does not embrace our values or desire for less government but seeks to supplant our desires with his own.

Yet, the president can not so simply expect us to believe his actions do not speak volumes about his true nature. As much as he attempts to deny what he really desires he also insults an electorate that grows more weary, impatient and unimpressed with life under his administration.

Let the avalanche of truth about Obama continue to fall until this president's value system, agenda and faithful party members are buried and unable to rise again. May Obama's legacy be such that America learns never to be fooled by the likes of his ideology again.

~~~

What VALUES are those, dmacwired?

You talk as if ALL American's have the same Values as yours.

Please list your values, so that I can read them and then determine if you and I have the same values.


And, while you're at it, please be more specific about what you mean by "less gov't"?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Well -- look what his beliefs have left us (WHATEVER THEY ARE!!):


A Washington ‘newspaper -- WaPo’ ran a story recently about Obama's inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough,...... a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.


Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.


For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. Remember?


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills. He signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.


In a nutshell, when Obama says he inherited a huge deficit, what he is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

(GUESS HE WAS TIED UP WRITING A CHILDREN’S BOOK DURING THIS TIME – AND LOST TRACK OF WHAT WAS GOING ON!!)

Posted by: wheeljc | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's Forbes article is an elaboration on points well made by Spengler in his Asia Times article in February 2008. Spengler's take was BHO as a third-world anthropologist analyzing the American public. Read it and you will think better of D'Souza's effort.

Posted by: rrigrish | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

And as for Obama's formative years spent in Hawaii. I spent some time in Hawaii in the 80's and I was very surprised by the anti-American sentiment there by the locals. There were flyers all over the islands promoting rallies to take the islands back from the American mainlanders. Apparently his mother was attracted to non-US citizens, two of whcih she met and married while there. She herself a very liberal, secular humanist and athiest. What veiw of America did Obama take away from his formative years spent in Hawaii?

Posted by: dingels75 | September 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

I am not happy with the president but to suggest that he adopted his father's beliefs when he never even knew his father, unless at the age of 2 he abandoned his childhood, is a rather generous reach.

Posted by: wp318676 | September 16, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza feeds his family by doing the bidding of unseen financiers of the money-losing right wing media. He's a butt kissing stooge.

Posted by: trblmkr1 | September 16, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Given the 'HISSY FIT' Gibbs has thrown, there must be some truth to it!!

Posted by: wheeljc | September 16, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Where it where, Mike?

Posted by: farmer1 | September 16, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I just read the article and now I understand the fear from the white house. It's a well-written article and liberals are going have a hard time attacking it; Unless they attack the author's integrity, which is what they are doing.

The article sure gave me a different view of Obama's views and it's not reassuring for the future of this country.

Posted by: trumeau | September 16, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Forbes is just mad because all of the rich in this country thought they could push President Obama around. Now, they now he's got balls. We gave Newt the boot, and it was well deserved. The rich have lived off of middle-class Americans long enough. They are holding their money, your money, and my money in their pockets, and not one of them are producing jobs. Furthermore, they are racist group of individuals when in terms of hiring.

President Obama must be doing his job really well, because if he were doing a bad job, the Republicans would be mute on all subjects.

I hope Boehner is voted out on his butt, because he is a selfish, inconsiderate butt hole. Over the years, his votes show that he has actually done nothing for the people who put him that seat. How sad.

Posted by: ohb4usa | September 16, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Here is a quick list of liberal commenters on this article who don't have any idea what the term "anti-colonialism" means in the context of this article: steve1231, dricks, bethechangeyouwant, Garak, dnjake, jake14, Hitpoints, asizk, detroitblkmale30, forgetthis, truly1, maggots.

The education system in the country is clearly a mess, and it has been built that way by liberals.

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

JoeT1:

I'm not sure which article you are reading, but in the one above, the author's defense is NOT to say "OK, all the facts are wrong, or don't support my thesis in any event, but it's just a piece of speculation anyway, and I like the conclusion, so facts don't matter."

Nice try through.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

You know what I really find funny?The Liberal Press has been doing this kinds of headlines on Republicans for years.Newsweek,Time,Rollingstone ect ect ect arrrg.Im actually glad Obama was elected just to see them squirm. like that old saying goes What goes around comes around.Democrats like most leftists are thinned skin. Thats why Carter Clinton cant keep their Piehole shut.Bush makes them look like whiny kids.

Posted by: Totoro | September 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I was trying to understand why Gingrich and Dinesh think being "anti-colonial" is bad, especially since the original tea party was a blatant anti-colonial act.

I think the key element here is race. If you are white, you can have your tea parties and revolutions. If you are black, either in the U.S. or Kenya, you are just supposed to be quiet and obey.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama hates business, the free market and capitalism in general. He seeks income redistribution. He's embarrassed by our nation's greatness and military power. He regards Islam as equally legitimate path to God, or maybe a superior one and probably thinks we deserved 9/11.

So in other words, he's a loser: a typical Blame-America-First Democrat.

Aren't all you liberal idiots proud of your President?

Posted by: Robster1 | September 16, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

I just plain object to Howard Kurtz and the whole Washington Compost.

Posted by: nevets829 | September 16, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Forbes is just mad because all of the rich in this country thought they could push President Obama around. Now, they now he's got balls. We gave Newt the boot, and it was well deserved. The rich have lived off of middle-class Americans long enough. They are holding their money, your money, and my money in their pockets, and not one of them are producing jobs. Furthermore, they are racist group of individuals when in terms of hiring.

President Obama must be doing his job really well, because if he were doing a bad job, the Republicans would be mute on all subjects.

I hope Boehner is voted out on his butt, because he is a selfish, inconsiderate butt hole. Over the years, his votes show that he has actually done nothing for the people who put him that seat. How sad.

Posted by: ohb4usa | September 16, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Golly...and all those liberal magazines and newspapers and MSNBC talking heads that had free ride on George Bush about cocaine, beer drinking, car accidents, secret homosexual Yale societies, non-fullfillment of military duty, no business experience except what his daddy did for him, his speech and smirk, his laugh and his Texas ranch and his girls getting drunk, and his swagger and his holding hands with the Saudi prince, and his drinking and raising hell as a young man...

Seems like the media just tried to tear George and the Republicans a new anus for 8 long years, didn't they....and I truly do not remember a single nappy time baby press secretary shout out to the mean old press and media folks about how bad all that was...and for sure Bush did not have paper thick skin...see, Bush KNOWS how to BE a Man....something that Barry WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE IN HIS LIFETIME NO MATTER WHAT. He will be remembered as the Black President that let his country, and especially his Black Brothers and Sisters down totally.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Just read Robster1 above. He says it all just perfectly.

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

While reading pro Obama comments I couldn't help but smile..

"We're talking about the gutter and all the conservative slimeballs who crawl in it."

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:00 PM


Really? Tell us more...maggots !

Posted by: dmacwired | September 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Forbes is a Right-Wing rag.

It should not have been surprising to me or any other person on the left that the now owner of a prominent magazine would produce such a viral nasty article against the President.

After all, didn't the "dork" Forbes run for presidential office two or maybe three times, already?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs is such a putz. Newsflash Gibbs, your boss can't get much lower. He is already down with whale crap and that is pretty low. So quit defending the indefensible.

Time and again it has been proven just how thin skinned this administration is. But then, we all know Obamao really isn't the president, he is just a puppet for the people who are really wielding the power.

Posted by: Rowdy1 | September 16, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Here is a quick list of liberal commenters on this article who don't have any idea what the term "anti-colonialism" means in the context of this article: steve1231, dricks, bethechangeyouwant, Garak, dnjake, jake14, Hitpoints, asizk, detroitblkmale30, forgetthis, truly1, maggots.

The education system in the country is clearly a mess, and it has been built that way by liberals.

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

#######################################

I enjoy being in such good company. Perhaps jesusHhong could put down his comic book and explain to us illiterates what anti-colonialism means. Hint - it has nothing to do with the colon!

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

ohb4usa:

That assume, of course, that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore is even legally President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

A very reasonable conclusion supported by Obama's apology tour, turning on our allies and supporting those not friendly to us.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This pretty much explains why modern day conservatism (if you can even call it htat) is losing me. Even though I don't like his policies attacking the character of President Obama's dead father to score points doesn't sit well with me, especially when you consider that D'Souza's former boss Ronald Reagan also had a father who was less than perfect. But of course you see the bottom feeders like Gingrich and the commenters here jumping right on board because they think it's acceptable to do this to liberal Democrat. If he were alive Reagan - who had class and integrity - wouldn't have anything to do with this sort of thing and neither will I. Shame on Forbes for publishing this tripe.

Posted by: RobertMorris14 | September 16, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Thanks to joeller for a sensible, reasoned comment -- unlike most of the shrieking that's been posted so far.

My opinion: I lived in Europe for 2.5 years as an adult, and still have many friends there (I know, that makes me suspect right off the bat). Obama is the first U.S. president in decades who most of the rest of the world respects and takes seriously. (But of course we shouldn't care what they think; we're the USA and we're born to run the rest of the world to our advantage, right?? Not.)

Posted by: PLozar | September 16, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

ohb4usa...OMG...you say OBAMA HAS BALLS?

OMFGA....no one would have EVER guessed that at all, not in a million years. Only way the American public to learn that obamahasballs is to see it in print on the internet written by some of his worshippers that lick them regularly...or whatever passes for something to fill the empty bag.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Man, if Barry-Hussein gets any more "thin-skinned", he's gonna split-open. What did he expect; that he would be treated like the Pope? Oh wait, come to think of it, he's been treated much better than the Pope. It's time for him to man-up; he is such a wimp.

Posted by: CogsUSA | September 16, 2010 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Golly...and all those liberal magazines and newspapers and MSNBC talking heads that had free ride on George Bush about cocaine, beer drinking, car accidents, secret homosexual Yale societies, non-fullfillment of military duty, no business experience except what his daddy did for him, his speech and smirk, his laugh and his Texas ranch and his girls getting drunk, and his swagger and his holding hands with the Saudi prince, and his drinking and raising hell as a young man...

Seems like the media just tried to tear George and the Republicans a new anus for 8 long years, didn't they....and I truly do not remember a single nappy time baby press secretary shout out to the mean old press and media folks about how bad all that was...and for sure Bush did not have paper thick skin...see, Bush KNOWS how to BE a Man....something that Barry WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE IN HIS LIFETIME NO MATTER WHAT. He will be remembered as the Black President that let his country, and especially his Black Brothers and Sisters down totally.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:05 PM |

~~~

Yes, but here is what you fail to realize.

Every thing ever written and said about George Bush was TRUE. They even did a movie about his life as a cocaine user, drunk, and all of those other things that you mentioned. Neither George or Laura Bush denied any of it.

And the difference between Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to Barack Obama, is that Conservative's keep trying to make up $hi% about Obama that you know is UNTRUE, I know that it is UNTRUE, and they know It's Untrue

That's the BIG difference.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Man, if Barry-Hussein gets any more "thin-skinned", he's gonna split-open. What did he expect; that he would be treated like the Pope? Oh wait, come to think of it, he's been treated much better than the Pope. It's time for him to man-up; he is such a wimp.

Posted by: CogsUSA | September 16, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Everybody try to please PLozar in their postings. He/she is saying who is posting "reasoned comments" and he/she LIVED IN EUROPE!!! Ohhh. How impressive!

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

While reading pro Obama comments I couldn't help but smile..

"We're talking about the gutter and all the conservative slimeballs who crawl in it."

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:00 PM


Really? Tell us more...maggots !

Posted by: dmacwired | September 16, 2010 2:07 PM | Report abuse

#######################################

The gutter is a concrete strip that runs between the sidewalk and the street. Although the gutter is designed for storm drainage, many uncultured people through their hamburger wrappers, cigarette butts, and other personal debris in the gutter, clogging it up. Some lower forms of life live in this environment, where they pick up filth and disease to spread to people. We call these creatures vermin.

Does that explain it for you?

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

It makes absolute perfect sense that what Dinesh says is true. Obama, by his actions, his appointments, his remarks, seems to hate America and capitalism. Wake up, people! You have elected a 3rd generation, America-hating communist.

Posted by: WilliamPenn | September 16, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

maggots:

How about YOU point out a single "erroneous fact" in the original D'Souza piece?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

A guy named "Dinesh D'Souza" accuses the President of having unAmerican views and the media jumps on the story? Too rich!

Posted by: BBear1 | September 16, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Poor "maggots." You will always be a victim...just like your hero Obama.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I can not believe the audacity of Forbes to publish such a "piece of white trash" about the President of the USA. Did Forbes compare the incompetent GW Bush with his father GH Bush (Crack Cocaine King) points of views? Did Forbes write an article about R. Reagan who allowed all that drug money to flow into the USA banks in the 1980's and ruin a whole generation of american children with crack cocaine addiction? Where has Forbes been? To write such a very insensitive article about the President of the USA is a crime and Forbes should pay the price for their reckless journalism.

Posted by: rkornegay1 | September 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311:

How about YOU point out a single "erroneous fact" in the original D'Souza piece?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

The level of delusion and hate that some commentors here direct at the President is remarkable, sad and distrubing. It is like seeing the halucinations of opium addicts reproduced in print. They foam at the mouth as if they were infect with ideological rabies. As for D'Souza, Gingrich and Forbes, you have to wonder how they can expect to be taken seriously going forward. I've read the article, and there is no there there.

Posted by: jdnathan | September 16, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311....WELL if hollywood did a MOVIE about BUSH...it by God MUST BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE and FACTUAL...like the JFG assassination movie maybe.

You confuse NOT answering DRIVEL and TRASH by George and Laura Bush as somehow making them agree with it. That is using a non existent negative argue with pure bile.

What you and the liberal maggots do not understand, and never will as it it TOTALLY a foreign concept to you, is that George and Laura Bush have class, and dignity of character, and strong self awareness, honesty, and self esteem. They would not address drivel and trash like that...they rise about it. Barry and Micko and Gibbs and Rahm and Axelrod just get down in the mud and roll around and squeal like pigs when they get insulted...they have NO class at all.

Amazing how they fit in so well with the Democrat mind...HuffPo and KOS educated mindless zealots of free everything for everyone paid for by those that work for a living.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:23 PM | Report abuse

This article is "childs play" compared to the crap written about G W Bush by most of the so-called "main stream news media"!

Posted by: Ronchylady | September 16, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"How about YOU point out a single "erroneous fact" in the original D'Souza piece?"

Well, the maggot part hurts a little, but how about the following. The Import Export Bank makes and guarantees loans to foreign entities to BUY AMERICAN PRODUCTS ONLY! The money supposedly going to explore for Brazilian oil in reality is going to buy American made drilling equipment to drill for oil. I guess American jobs are no longer on the agenda today? Also, as stated in the article above, all of the directors of the IE Bank are Bush appointees, not Obama's.

So does the truth matter at all?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

That Obama imbibed his anti-colonial neurosis from his father is highly questionable.There is a much better case to be made that he picked up the nonsense from his crack pot preacher

Posted by: diana11777 | September 16, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

pascal64 wrote:
Everybody try to please PLozar in their postings. He/she is saying who is posting "reasoned comments" and he/she LIVED IN EUROPE!!! Ohhh. How impressive!
- - - - -

Golly. I expressed my favorable opinion of ONE comment, and that's reason to scorn me. pascal64 has been expressing his/her opinion of many other comments for hours.

As for my having lived in Europe, my point was that I'm in touch with people outside the U.S. who read their local papers, listen to their local political commentators, and discuss with me what they hear, so I'm not just speculating about what the rest of the world thinks. How many of the "anti-anti-colonialism" commentators can make the same claim?

Posted by: PLozar | September 16, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

jdnathan:

Please cite to a single ERRONEOUS fact.

BBear1:

"Foreigners" don't get to comment on Obama now?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

The Forbes article and Gringrinch's piling on reeks of racism and effete East Coast elitism.

If the Democrats ever want to be in power for more than four years, they need to grow some and fight the lies and smears of the racist, teabagger Glenn Beck Fox News "Christians" with the same.

There is no low to where these Rovian Huckabees won't go.

Posted by: areyousaying | September 16, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

maggots:

How about YOU point out a single "erroneous fact" in the original D'Souza piece?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

*********************************

Obama made only one trip to Pakistan - he did not spend his formative years there at all. That's the first lie - am too cheap to buy Forbes to look for more.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

...same person who demands that a Healthcare bill bill allow people to absolutely KEEP their existing insurance, that the NEW bill will save money and reduce their expenses while covering an additional 20 million uninsured Americans, and will do away with pre-existing conditions and allow kids to stay on the parent's insurance through age 26....and then when the bill is passed....NONE OF THIS IS TRUE.

This White House has a big liar for a press secretary, and his lies border on treasonous fraud over the nation.
Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 1:36

============================
The reason that these items were NOT in the bill can be expressed in a single word: REPUBLICANS! Pay attention cause you can't afford free speach!! Your head is in the sand until you hear some sound bite that you WISH to hear . . . I love this country, but the nutcases out here scare me every day. Y'all need help!

Posted by: SumHaveSaid | September 16, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I feel that Obama's grandiose personality is primarily derived from his having been abandoned by both parents and is unrelated to his cultural background.

Posted by: Guarapari | September 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

What the heck does it matter? The major point is Mr. Obama is the Thug and Chief and needs to resign..Impeachment is not good enough!!! Obama has a right to his oppinions but he has no right to force them upon the American People.He was swarn in to uphold the Constitution and has not done it. And the Declaration of Independence says it is our duty and our right to get rid of a long train of abuses and usurpations.Please read the Declaration of Independence. It's between the 2nd and 4th pages depending on the size of your book...He is done and enough damage in his short time, Just think what it can be in 4 years....

Posted by: phillywilly25 | September 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311 wrote:

Every thing ever written and said about George Bush was TRUE. They even did a movie about his life as a cocaine user, drunk, and all of those other things that you mentioned. Neither George or Laura Bush denied any of it.

And the difference between Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to Barack Obama, is that Conservative's keep trying to make up $hi% about Obama that you know is UNTRUE, I know that it is UNTRUE, and they know It's Untrue

That's the BIG difference.

-------------------------------------------

Have you read D'souza article? I guess not.

While his conclusion is up to debate, his facts are hard to refute. The author uses words from Obama's book and policies that are not well-known by the layman. That Gibbs wants to meet with Forbes to discuss the article is a pretty good indication that the White House is afraid of this article.

Like it or not D'souza made a pretty strong case on how Obama views the world.

Posted by: trumeau | September 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311:

How about YOU point out a single "erroneous fact" in the original D'Souza piece?

Posted by: JakeD2 |

~~~


The article is erroneous, because D'Souza projected his own personal opinions and thoughts in a prominent magazine, so that he and his puppet master's can continue to manipulate the minds of the Right-Wing rag heads and trailer trash into believing their conspiracy theories.

And Jake, you know, that you and the rest of the Right-Wing raggedy behind's do this every day of the week to figure out a way to "delegitimize" the President's character.

If I can see through the BS, so can you, so don't try to play these freaking head games with me.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Hope I'm not too late to tell all you people with common sense and who can think for yourselves that this kind of article is garbage.

What to do about it?
Cancel subscription to Forbes and absolutely do not buy the book.

I am glad to see by many comments that a lot of people are not taken in by this stuff.

The truth is out there. We just have to dig it out from under the lies and greed.

"When money talks, the Truth is silent".

Posted by: Searcher37 | September 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Oh my gosh, I'm so angry but I can't think of anything clever to dispute your argument. I know, you are all a bunch of racists!!! And liars!!! It was OK to bash Bush and make threats on his life because he was evil and...racist! There's the difference.

Sorry I just had a liberal moment.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

PLozar for all of your global wisdom, every credible newspaper as well as tabloids are today on the internet for EVERYONE to read, and you need not get your passport inked up to read everything said about the USA and Obama in all parts of the globe...especially if you have more than one language .

Don't know about the folks you might hang with whilst visiting Lithuania or Bavaria...but Universally the reports on Obama are terrible from everyone other than liberal ranting and America haters that were out there strong since the are of the Berlin Wall in 1962 and the book on US Tourists, "The Ugly American".

Save your self satisfaction for a blog of your equals...try HuffPo. Arianna is YOUR type of European great mind.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Poor "maggots." You will always be a victim...just like your hero Obama.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

#####################################

Oh, it's true, I'm a victim - you don't what it's like to have all these beautiful women chasing you for your body!

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The media did a lackluster job in uncovering Obama's past; i.e. college grades and writings. If they had wanted to dispell any theories about what Obama's core beliefs were (James Carville would call it 'his soul') then they should have shone a light into the life of young Barack.

So now someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum has an opening to speculate how his ideology solidified, when those who have covered for Obama did no looking in the first place.

They doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted by: leatherman1 | September 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

PLozar:

Sorry for being impolite. Perhaps you don't realize how tiresome many of us find the references to Obama's European popularity. It's not surprising to most of us, given Europe's subtle and not-so-subtle anti-Americanism. Obama is loved there because he shares a popular disdain for the US.

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I think that Barack Junior's mother, Stanley, had a lot to do with Barack Jr. s twisted outlook.

Stanley spent her teenage years on Mercer Island, WA, a very well to do area, just across a short span of water from Seattle, WA.

Stanley rebelled against her parents for naming her Stanley, and she rebelled against the wealth she saw all around her, and passed her bitterness on to her son.

************

Is BArack Obama in favor of colonialism? Was his father?

Posted by: etronsen | September 16, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

D'Souza never claimed that they weren't Bush appointees, only that Obama "had the authority to stop the financing" (I'm not arguing JOBS here).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Of course the article re Obama is correct. He gave back the bust of Churchill soon after coming into office.

Churchill, arguably the greatest politician of the 20th century, was dumped because he was a white western guy. (What the dimwit doesn't know is that Kenya did not even have the wheel when the British got there. No reading, no writing, no wheel. Not even the concept of time.)

But Kurtz, a full member of the Journolist group who plotted to get Obama elected by distorting news can no longer be trusted to provide objective information on anything to do with Obama.

Posted by: ellenoday | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

jjcrocket14, Obama is a flat out Marxist looking to bring down this nations Constitution and replace it with Communist anti religious Elites!
______
What a ridiculous post. Dislike his policies, debate the affects, but is is simply slimy to say he is a Marxist/Communist. News Flash - a) elected government, b) Bills that are open to debate, c) majority vote on bills, d) No take over of media, healthcare, infrastructure, major businesses. d) booming stock market and capitalism. You are delusional.

Posted by: cadam72 | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

OH Searcher27....how clever of you...just cancel your little Forbes Subsciption to show how upset and ashamed you are for the behavior and insults of these journalist types....and stomp your foot too, they will just have to get your message!!

Should we also boycott Arizona, burn the constitution, build a trophy mosque on the White House lawn, and serve fried chicken to the respectable members of the like minded Congressional Black Caucus while we are showing our little liberal pique?

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

The media did a lackluster job in uncovering Obama's past; i.e. college grades and writings. If they had wanted to dispell any theories about what Obama's core beliefs were (James Carville would call it 'his soul') then they should have shone a light into the life of young Barack.

So now someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum has an opening to speculate how his ideology solidified, when those who have covered for Obama did no looking in the first place.

They doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted by: leatherman1 | September 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

######################################

The media and wingnuts like you went through Obama's background with a fine tooth comb and found NOTHING! I repeat, NOTHING!

Gingrich is the self-admitted adulterer - why don't you spend some time looking there.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Funny Maggots. I am quite sure I am not as attractive as you. I appreciate your humor. Now just build on that self confidence and realize you don't need the federal government to right what you perceive to be the wrongs being done to you.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Anti-colonialism: Suddenly the Tea Peeps in tri-corn hats seem much less outrageous?

Posted by: srb2 | September 16, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Icarter get real...Read!!! And the racist card is beyond old...It's down right ancient!!!! Read and do more reading until you get the BIG PICTURE!!!!!

Posted by: phillywilly25 | September 16, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 wrote:

"D'Souza never claimed that they weren't Bush appointees, only that Obama "had the authority to stop the financing" (I'm not arguing JOBS here"

Here's the verbatim quote from the article:

"The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil."

Now if you consider that an accurate statement by D'Souza, then we just have a different view of what is factual. That's no problem with me, as long as people can consider both versions and decide for themselves.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

I read the actual D'Souza article in Forbes yesterday and can understand why the White House has their panties in such a bunch over this. People should read it themselves, however, and make up their own minds.

Nevertheless, D'Souza seems to offer the best explanation I have heard to date to explain why our President and his peculiar decisions are so..., well..., different.

Still, I continue to like the man and always look forward to the speeches that he and his teleprompter give. Moreover, I also admire his absolutely charming wife and two adorable daughters.

And so it goes...

Posted by: pgould1 | September 16, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Read Dreams From My Father and you will find it is all true. Read the writings of Obama's mentor Frank Marshall Davis and he felt the same way. Ignorance is bliss but also hurtful. Read about Black Liberation Theology and its Communist South American beginnings. This is our leaders Ideology and background and you blinded Liberal sheeple refuse to acknowledge the truth. He and his minions are trying to destroy this country from within and form a New World Order, the evidence is there, just ignoring it doesn't make it any less real. Scary that people just name call without an intelligent debate. Saul Alinsky is alive and well, another Communist may I add. Even scarier that you are allowed to vote and probably drive a car. Spread the wealth, shut down the internet, ignore our laws and demonize those that want to enforce them, free pass to Black Panthers that are convicted, take over companies, about to take away your 401ks, control the news, indoctrinate our children. America is on the verge of not being a free society. I would really like to read some of his school papers or see his grades for that matter, won't happen. Lobbyists and unions writing our bills that no one can read. You don't see a trend? When this country is in a Greater Depression then maybe you will really care.

Posted by: Skychief | September 16, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Obama should consult George W. Bush on how to handle the harsh criticism that comes with the office.

W. set the standard: Never complain. Never explain. Never blame.

Buck up Obama. Or get out of the truck.

Posted by: thewaywest | September 16, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Why is Gibbs mad? Is there something wrong with anti-colonialism?

Posted by: etronsen | September 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Just because Forbes is a magazine focusing on the business side of the world, doesn't mean they are wrong in this article. It explains Obama's apology tour, his turning on our traditional allies and his siding with our enemies. He is a weak President who the world knows they can push around. He is embarrassed by the US instead of being proud of it. Even his wife said she wasn;t proud of the US. They have no pride in the US support for freedom, the support provide by our military and the people for those suffering in catastrophies, nor is he proud of the US being the leader in the business world. His anti business policies will damage the US ability to compete in a world economy. He is the most inexperienced President in 60 years, who has accomplished nothing positive.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Ohhh, maggots...did Gingrich get snorked by a little girl intern in the Oval Office like your Pressy William the guy that "depends upon what the definition of 'is' is."

I thought liberals were in favor of adultry...after all, that was what Obama's momma and poppa were doing in Hawaii that resulted in a mulatto President of the USA today...isn't it called adultry having sex outside of marriage...and then when two folks get married like Obambi's parents did, and ONE OF THEM IS STILL MARRIED to a woman sweeping up the mud hut in Kenya..isn't THAT called BIGAMY......WHEN did liberals start getting SO moral oriented that they should throw rocks at Republicans, but FORGET about John Edwards adultry and having baby in the affair...oh my...such hypocrasy and lack of material to reach a moral high ground.

Posted by: joelevin | September 16, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

cadam72: Delusional?

a) elected government - he'd change it if he could
b) Bills that are open to debate - like ObamaCare?
c) majority vote on bills - Remember the vote-buying on ObamaCare?
d) No take over of media - Why bother?
Healthcare - Huh?
Infrastructure - Where's stimulus go?
Major businesses - GM, banks, healthcare
d) booming stock market and capitalism - What's Barry have to do with that?

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it: bigotry is alive and well in this country and the fact of a Black President, who also happens to be super smart, a wonderful father and husband, with tons of charisma to boot is just too much to swallow for some. It just strikes a "raw nerve" on those bigots in the opposite political spectrum. The sheer volume and virulence of the lies and distortions being relentlessly echoed in the media about President Obama is the proof of the pudding. I have faith that they will fall flat on the majority of people, just like the "palin with terrorists", etc., nonsense did during the presidential campaign. His only vulnerability is the weak economy but it shouldn't be so hard to point out who messed it up and is still trying, through obstructionism, to prevent it from recovering.

Posted by: AJBF | September 16, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Now I'm no longer a supporter of our President. I was. But I disagree with a lot of the policies and actions used by what I feel has an arrogant administration that has ignored the real concerns of our Middle Class. The Democrats has had one-party control of both Houses of our government and the presidency -

But this issue seems very flawed. I'm anti-colonial. FDR was anti-colonial. If he had lived I doubt we -- as a nation -- would have supported the French move to recolonize Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Talk about a changed world if we had not br dragged into those horrible wars.

Who today says they support British rule of India?

Are there great cries to have the Middle east under the control of the French, English or Ottoman Empire?

How about the struggles in Africa? Yes there have been disasters but all people have it within themselves the urge to seek freedom. Such is one of the founding precepts of our nation.

Do not fall into lies. I am proud to be anti-Colonial!

Posted by: astonsmyth | September 16, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311, You say, "Every thing ever written and said about George Bush was TRUE." If your statement is correct, then why isn't Dan Rather still the anchor at ultra-liberal CBS Evening News.

George Bush was willing to release his medical records, college transcripts, etc. Yet despite this information being available to the public, he was still attacked by a biased media.

Yet, you claim bias when the background and resultant actions of the current President are questioned. Remember, he is a President who has spent massive amounts of money to keep his documents and records from being made public.

Questions should be asked and actions should be questioned when a person has gone to such lengths to keep his background secret. It is too bad that the questions weren't raised by the media during his campaign, but better late than never.

Posted by: appalachian | September 16, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

joelevin wrote:
Universally the reports on Obama are terrible from everyone other than liberal ranting and America haters that were out there strong since the are of the Berlin Wall in 1962 and the book on US Tourists, "The Ugly American".
- - - - -

I'm not overly impressed with your grasp of the facts. "The Ugly American" had absolutely zilch to do with "tourists." And I'm afraid I don't see what the Berlin Wall has to do with "America haters" -- I was living in Austria when it came down, had colleagues who went to Berlin for the occasion, and the chief emotion everyone reported was joy at the reunification of Berlin.

Posted by: PLozar | September 16, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

maybe there is a genetic test Obama could take to "prove" to the flat earth club he is no anti-colonial socialist. By the way, I'm anti-colonial.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | September 16, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Funny Maggots. I am quite sure I am not as attractive as you. I appreciate your humor. Now just build on that self confidence and realize you don't need the federal government to right what you perceive to be the wrongs being done to you.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

#####################################

First off, thanks for your service in Afghanistan. I am sure that there weren't many women chasing anybody over there!

Secondly, if you really want a good example of victimhood, look at the tea party movement. You have all these middle-aged white men (like me) who are whining about their loss of power and privilege, and want everyone to pay attention to their rage and tantrums.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I've taken out a subscription for Forbes magazine based on the Obama article.

We must support 'truth to power'.

Posted by: ellenoday | September 16, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Racism. From a capitalist tool. Just cancelled my subscription -- and the 40 others at my company.

Posted by: jbh3 | September 16, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

2nd) D'Souza dated Ann Coulter. 'nough said.

Posted by: steve1231 |

Wouldn't that make deSouza gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | September 16, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kurtz: You end your article with a 'smear' quote from Columbia Journalism Review, not that what has come out of Columbia in the past is known for its support of America. Other than Obama's age when he visited Pakistan, you don't dispute Mr. D'Souza's facts. You simply reiterate them as facts as though D'Souza didn't state the same things. I urge all to call up Forbes.com and read D'Souza's article.

You insinuate that his psychoanalysis of Obama and his retrofit of the President's action into the anti-colonial views of his father is false. You too are entitled to your opinion, but don't impugn that of another as though it's based on lies or bad facts while suggesting your own validity simply because you repeat facts which D'Souza has already revealed while suggesting by omission that he did not. Your indictment of his opinion is disingenuous.

If D'Souza's analysis is so misguided, it will die the death of irrelevancy. You seem worried about that.

You repeat D'Souza's assertion that Obama spent his formative years outside mainland America, and again through insinuation that D'Souza admitted he was wrong about all of Obama's formative years because D'Souza later acknowledged error of one portion, that Obama visited Pakistan prior to age 17. One error does not make his statement that OBama lived off the mainland of America during his formative years false.

You reaffirm D'Suoza's statement that Obama spent his early years "off the American mainLAND", then in parenthesis you say ("Hawaii of course may be off the American mainland, but is hardly out of the American mainSTREAM"). Your assertion is debateable, but D'Souza did not say Hawaii was out of the American mainstream. So you twist Mr. D'Souza's meaning, Mr. Kurtz.

And according to you, Gibbs offered no factual rebuttal to D'Souza's statements, just a smear job of his own.
Dinesh D'Souza hit a home run with his analysis of Obama, and like the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, it pushes socialists' hot button.

I urge all to call up Forbes.com and read Dinesh D'Souza's article that Mr. Kurtz vicariously criticizes here.

Posted by: bbwk80a1 | September 16, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

When did Murdoch buy Forbes and make Ailes Editor-in-Chief?

Posted by: areyousaying | September 16, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

What a ridiculous argument. Only some white imperial racist would advocate that colonialism was a good policy.

Posted by: vztownes | September 16, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Aside from the article itself - an astonishing tendency has taken form.

Champions of minorities though they cherish themselves to be many a pro Obama comment has been willing to lay a foundation on the racist bedrock of Dinesh's ethnicity in order to support their arguments.

One individual claiming to be East Indian went so far as to point out India's class system as reason to denounce Dinesh's comments - breathtaking to say the least.

Granted, some anti-Obama posts have not been without their own racist sentiments by mentioning, for example, Kenya, half white/half black, in reference to Obama. Still, I thought pro-Obama folks were the paragons of virtue in all things colored bind.

So, how is it pro-Obama people abandon their calling if not their honor and latch onto ethnicity when defending their cause?

Our complexion should have nothing to do with who we are or our ideology. Can't we just drop the "race card" once and for all - perhaps we could demand lateral race card disarmament?

Posted by: dmacwired | September 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

It seems Gingrich is referring to a passionate piece Obama’s father wrote called "Problems Facing our Socialism"

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

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.”

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.

Posted by: fury60 | September 16, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

I am an anti-colonial socialist and I can tell you, without a doubt, Obama has never been to any of the meetings.

Posted by: NMModerate1 | September 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

I guess Steve Forbes like to suck dick because his father certainly did.

And we know Dinesh D'Souza likes to bow and scrape before white people because his father.. oh forget his father, he just likes to bow and scrape before white people.

Posted by: Observer691 | September 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The Right-Wing Rag is just highly peeved that they are NOT in control of the Presidency or the Congress, so that they can continue pillaging our Treasury (middle class taxes) and giving away million's and billion's of middle class tax payer dollar's to their crony a$$ friend's. They are mad as as hell, I tell ya!

Some are downright angry and even more madder at President Obama (a black man). because he has been on to their game for some time now and they also know that he is working hard to put things back to the way they used be for the middle class (whites, blacks, hispanic's, etc), before the GOP screwed up the whole damn country under Bush.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza would have been better served if he'd used Saul D. Alinsky as Obama's philosophical mentor. It is Alinsky's teachings that Obama is following, not Obama Sr. Indeed, many of Obama's policies can be taken directly from "Rules for Radicals."

Posted by: WriterDude | September 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see: Washington, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, all the signatories of the Declaration of Independence, and those who voted the Constitution of the United States were all anti-colonialists. But Benedict Arnold and Newtered Gingrich are pro-colonialists.
Am I right, or am I right?

Posted by: analyst72 | September 16, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

screwjob121 wrote: ""Have I mentioned yet that my father was a Kenyan Muslim?""

===========================================
...uh, my dog's name is Skippy?

Posted by: carlaclaws | September 16, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Maggots, what you see in the Tea Party is not people who claim to be victims. They do not want anyone to give them anything. They certainly do not want aything to be taken away from others. What they want is their voices to be heard. They want representatives in our government who will adhere to the Constitution and work to keep the government within its Constitutional boundaries. Note I did not say they want to get rid of the federal government. They want the proper limitations maintained. They also know that excessive taxes for the purpose of expanding government and paying entitlements to those who are capable of earning for themselves is wrong and contrary to the Constitutional provisions for taxation. The Tea Party knows that smaller government and an empowered free market is the best possible environment for people of all backgrounds to find employment, success and dignity.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

I have read Gibb's accusations about D'Souza's piece and he said nothing of consequence. The Columbia Review sounds equally unhinged. This is beyond bizarre. What the hell is wrong with these people. Mr. D'Souza can write any theory he wishes and backs it up with reasons as to why. The arguments made by the others are not arguments at all but rather outrage at the fact that someone has written an analysis of Mr. Obama's influences. Frightening that they feel comfortable expressing such unprofessional sentiments. They have gone insane.

Posted by: lavistabb | September 16, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Because of the careful campaign Obama and his handlers ran in 2008 and the way the liberal media protected the candidate, Americans had less hard information about our new president than they had had about any president in our history. JFK wrote two books: one about the courage of politicians and one about why England was unprepared for war. Obama wrote two books as well - both about himself. That is typical of this very narcissistic man. It is quite fair for any author to mine those two books for any information that will shed light on this mysterious president of ours and to draw conclusions about the sources of his thinking. If Obama and his handlers don't like the conclusions- tough.

Posted by: mhr614 | September 16, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

The closer to home any criticism of Obama and this administration hits the louder the uproar from Baghdad Bob Gibbs and the WH MSM wing.

I guess this one left a black eye.

Posted by: Charley_XF | September 16, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

While describing Obama Sr. as a polygamist and drunk driver who has been accused of wife-beating, the author says that the president "adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder.... He must work to wring the neocolonialism out of America and the West...Clearly the anti-colonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. goes a long way to explain the actions and policies of his son in the Oval Office. ..... The invisible father provides the inspiration."

Obama's position on free markets is that in todays world many of the markets are not so "free".

Government can prevent free markets, however so can the private sector when monopolies and oligopolies are created by private companies. One of governments principle duties is to protect our freedom. This includes access to free markets.

What does the American auto industry, the health care industry, wall street firms and the banking industry all have in common; other than they were all on the brink of failure?

These are industries where the production side of the industry is no longer a free market with many producers competing head-to head to earn the business of consumers, or customers, of the industry. Instead each of these industries are controlled by a relatively small number of very large corporations that have transformed these markets into oligopolies.

Adam Smith when he discussed “rational self interest” and competitive markets in his book Wealth of Nations, envisioned many consumers buying goods and services from many producers with everyone looking out for their self-interest. By keeping markets “free”, producers pursue their rational self-interest and this best meets the needs of the consumers and the citizens of our country, who are also looking out for their self-interest. Under this system, what is in the producers self interest is to provide the best product possible to the consumer, while striving to be a low cost producer for their niche.

Read More: .... http://xrl.us/bhxjk6

Posted by: banicki | September 16, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Everytime this president is criticized the response is disproportinate indignation...this is just another example of how unqulified this man is to be President...every president endures unrelenting criticism from his advesaries and enemies...he must know how to handle it...Bush ignored it...clinton smoothly defended himself without attacking ...reagan handled it with humor...Obama overeacts...and the more he does it the more his critics will smell blood ...true amateurs in the white house...people don't like whiners and crybabies

Posted by: phillysmart | September 16, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

The vitriol and meanness that so called conservatives show towards this president so disgusting that I will not in a near future vote for a republican. It points towards some serious mental disorder more than anything else. Adios Republican party and hope you enjoy the lunes.

*****************************************
Your hypocracy is laughable...You apparently had no problem with the "vitriol and meaness" of the democrats for the eight years of Bush but you'll still vote democrat? You're exposed for your easily manipulated lemming that you are.

Posted by: RobInNewHampshire | September 16, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The president who campaigned for a more “open government” and “full disclosure” will not unseal his medical records, his school records, his birth records or his passport records. He will not release his Harvard records, his Columbia College records, or his Occidental College records—he will not even release his Columbia College thesis. All his legislative records from the Illinois State Senate are missing and he claims his scheduling records during those State Senate years are lost as well. In addition, no one can find his school records for the elite K-12 college prep school, Punahou School, he attended in Hawaii.

Posted by: fury60 | September 16, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's comments do appear to have hit a nerve. Such wild hyperbole in the Columbia Journalism review would indicate as much. I think that D'Souza makes an interesting argument. I remember thinking something similar when Obama returned the bust of Churchill, which was pretty inexplicable unless one considers his Indonesian youth and how much Churchill is hated in that country. Similarly the strange penchant for bowing very low to Arab and Asian leaders I believe also stems from his childhood in Asia, where a low bow is appropriate from a child but not from an adult. So yes, I do think Obama is influence by his "foreign" upbringing, as many who voted for him wanted and expected. Why is it so horrible if someone dares to look a little more closely at the ramifications of this for an American president?

Posted by: spado | September 16, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

A quote from D'Sousa's article,

"f Obama shares his father's anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more. The anticolonialist believes that since the rich have prospered at the expense of others, their wealth doesn't really belong to them; therefore whatever can be extracted from them is automatically just.

Recall what Obama Sr. said in his 1965 paper: There is no tax rate too high, and even a 100% rate is justified under certain circumstances."

If the basis of the quote is true, than I agree with Obama's Dead Father.

Why should the Rich Exploit the middle class and poor people to obtain their riches, using middle class tax payer funds and debts from China to subsidize their War profit's and other forms of Capitalism to bamboozle the poor and middle class with scheme's like sub-prime lending.

Somebody has got to pay for the "bogus" fraudulent schemes to go fight War's and the schemes to EXPLOIT the poor and middle class to become millionaires and billionaires over night!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311= Kool-aid king

Posted by: RobInNewHampshire | September 16, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

These idiots haven't learned that one never picks a fight with someone who owns or works for a newspaper, magazine, radio or TV station. They have the capability to skewer you. But Gibbs and Obumbler feel free and keep on talking it just makes you look more and more inept.

Posted by: jimsouders | September 16, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

A few questions a real reporter would ask. Gibbs says there are numerous factual inaccurate parts of the story. Is it possible that you could DO YOU JOB and get him on the record so that statement can be researched and/or challenged? What is false. Finally, so they admit obama was in pakistan as an adult when it was impossible to travel there w/ a US passport when he went. How did he get in? What nation issued his passport...where are his college transcripts....on and on and on.

Posted by: j751 | September 16, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311= Kool-aid king

Posted by: RobInNewHampshire

~~~

You're just pissed off because you know I am telling the truth.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

"the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

???

Kurtz is getting introspective. Isn't it fun when people drive the nail in one strike?

This reminds me of the New Yorker cover. The more right you are the more aggressive the pushback response. And when Kurtz is quoting the Columbia JournoLism Review in the WaPo it tells me D'Souza just hit a GRAND SLAM.

Posted by: Dirtt | September 16, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh my! No fact-checking? We need honest journalists of old. Where's Dan Rather these days?

Posted by: shootndribble | September 16, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I am amused at all the people here that profess to being experts on the American Revolution and the founders beliefs / thoughts on the subject of colonialism.

The founders and most of the population were not against colonialism as many here have said. You're ignorance is perhaps matched only by our current "vacationer in chiefs" arrogance and narcissitic bent.

Our founders ( well for Americans anyway ) saw great merit in being colonials. The problem was pretty much the same problem we have had now for the past forty odd years of left wing leadership in Congress and to a lesser extent in the WH except for Reagan, ( who was as close to a Constitutional Conservative as we have had in the past 120 years).

The problem the colonists had is ( I'll say this slowly ): taxation with out representation. Something the left can't quite grasp and I say this with both parties in mind. There are not too many conservatives in national politics. Both parties are so far left of center that JFK would be considered a right wing radical today.

That is why we are witnessing one of the greatest awakenings in politics in the last 100 years. The Tea Party movement is not a flash in the pan. It is the average Joe realizing something really stinks and the odor is coming from Congress and the WH

And that dear friends is why the democrats and many RINOS have their respective panties in a bunch. The middle has had enough. We are tired of being taxed while the elites represent all the special interests. There will be an accounting in the next 3 elections.

Posted by: mckayt | September 16, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Thin skinned, narcissistic, self-indulgent - yup that about sums it up. Obama didn't inherit anything other than a love of anti-American bigots and despots. While his father is certainly contributory, Obama's papa pales in comparison to his teachers at Columbia, Harvard, his friends such as Van Jones, Ayers, Rev. Hateful Wright, etc.

I applaud Forbes for printing this worthy article and FWIW, this article is kind compared to things written about Bush in publications such as Slate, the Atlantic, Time, or even the NYT;s.

Posted by: freepost | September 16, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

There certainly is a lack of transparency regarding Obama. And important facets of his life, choices he made, such as being a member of the congregation of racist black liberation minister Wright, who regularly denounced America. Rev. Wright was also an associate or Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the racist Black Muslims, and also an ideologue, who denounced America. The media was derelict in trivilaizing such odious associations.

Obama had a career Communist Party member as his surrogate father and mentor.

Obama said the most beautiful sound was the muzzein call to prayer.

As you may recall, Obama also thought there were 57 states, which reflected his lack of exposure to American mainstream influences.

What we need is an examination of the credentials of Obama, who was purportedly had his education subsidized by grants available only to foreign students, and who traveled to on an Indonesian passport. Hmm.

The failure of the courts to provide a forum for resolution of the ambiguities regarding Obama's qualification to serve as President is disgraceful. Possibly a Republican House of Representatives may have embers with the backbone to inquire and resolve the allegations concerning Obama. It's unfortunate that the suspicions are sustained by Obama's failure to provide access to information. Obama is the culprit and responsible for continuing questions concerning his eligibility.

He does reflect the views he attributed to his father. Even if they are a fictional construct, they are Obama's views.

Well, as a nation, we got what we voted for. More's the pity. We made our bed, but that does not detract from the discomfort.

Posted by: Johnson11 | September 16, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I get discouraged reading comments because it is depressingly clear how uninformed people are. I wonder where they come up with these remarks - and I discover they come from Fox or from someone who has no credentials other than being right wing and anti-Democrat. Facts never get in the way.

I would suggest the President might be a more attentive father determined not to abandon his family, other than that I don't know the man nor anything about his personal relationship with his immediate family except he is a present father, close to his sister and his wife's family. Seems normal to me and anything else is not our business. If the right argues it matters because of his mind set then one might argue W was the "slow" son of the Bush family - Jeb the golden one and how that has played in other families (not well) and make spurious judgements there.

And as for the Churchill bust - point in fact about truth not being a factor. This bust was LOANED by the British to W. It was due to go back but W asked if it could be loaned longer. It was scheduled to go back and arrangements made - before Obama took office. It was never OUR property. I know there is a lot to disagree about but can people just do some investigating themselves before going on a rant? First thing IF you watch Fox be objective. When they play a sound-bite - is it complete? Does what they play contain the true content or are the words selected only to support their opinion? Usually truth is no where near anything they say -- they supported the NYC religious center 100% until they decided to make it an issue - check out Jon Stewart - he played all the sound bites on this issue -- Fox was all misty-eyed about it until their rabid right thought it could be this year's issue (gays are going to ruin your marriage, burning the flag is evil, Saddam planned 9/11, etc.)

Posted by: Lemon7221 | September 16, 2010 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't Obama making essentially the same point as D'Souza, when he said at an April 6, 2008 fundraiser, "So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . .

"I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college--I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. . . ."

Posted by: fnorton1 | September 16, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

And yet, the White House has nothing but praise for the Washington Post. Go figure!

Posted by: curious606 | September 16, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Anti-Colonialism ?

George Washington didn't talk with the british. He shot them.

" Racism. From a capitalist tool. Just cancelled my subscription -- and the 40 others at my company. "
Not to worry, your company won't be around long under obama's watch anyway.

Posted by: Sicario1 | September 16, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

analyst 72: "Am I right, or am I right?"

You are wrong. Did you even read the Forbes article before commenting?

Dinesh D'Souza defines the doctrine for those who are unfamiliar with term: "Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America."

Our founding fathers most assuredly did not believe in this doctrine.

Posted by: TXpatriot2 | September 16, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

This White House lecturing ANYBODY on "truth and fact"?

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

You can't make this up.

Posted by: standard_guy | September 16, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Unbelievable, now its Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D'Souza, before it was John Boehner, and before that Sarah Palin, and before it was Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Doesn't the WH know that this tactic just elevates the opponent and diminishes you?

I read the Forbes piece. Its an analysis, nothing more. You can agree or disagree. The fact that this White House deemed it to be such a threat to the POTUS that it dispatched Robert Gibbs to address it say this administration is swinging punches wildly in the dark.

November is the intervention.

Posted by: RaiderDan | September 16, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

The Right-Wing want to claim that Obama expanding the Gov't.

Bush and Cheney expanded the whole g-damn gov't and military between 2000 and 2010 with their bogus Wars and CIA Intelligence missions!

And let's NOT talk about all of the Private Contracting Companies working for both the Military and Federal Agencies.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Steve Forbes is the poster boy for any movement to eliminate inherited wealth. He's living proof that they become a pushy self-centered greedy aristocracy. It's even more noticable when they aren't half the man their father was.

Posted by: Petronius_Jones | September 16, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

1776 Forbes Cover Story

Washington, Jefferson, and Continental Congress: The Anti-Colonialists, What Makes Them Tick?

Posted by: silverfish1 | September 16, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

In the least Obama is anti-American. If you had traveled to Kenya in the last couple of years, you would think he is a Kenyan because they believe he is a Kenyan.

Posted by: arcap | September 16, 2010 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps jesusHhong could put down his comic book and explain to us illiterates what anti-colonialism means.
Posted by: maggots
#############################################

Sorry maggot. You have to earn your own education, your liberal village-raising has obviously failed you.

Posted by: jesusHhong | September 16, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

ellenoday wrote:

"He gave back the bust of Churchill soon after coming into office.

Churchill, arguably the greatest politician of the 20th century, was dumped because he was a white western guy. (What the dimwit doesn't know is that Kenya did not even have the wheel when the British got there. No reading, no writing, no wheel. Not even the concept of time.)"

Yes you are quite right. It was indeed shocking that a bust that had stood in place for 8 whole years was not deemed worthy of being there forever! It is even MORE shocking that the bust was replaced with one of Abraham Lincoln, an AMERICAN of all things! Doesn't the President know he is anti-American? Why couldn't somebody stop him for God's sake.

After all, the bust was only a companion piece to the one of Franklin Roosevelt that sits in the office of the British Prime Minister, isn't it? It should never be forgotten that Churchill saved the US during WWII, and contributed so much to our history. I believe that we should start an online petition drive to show support for the return of the bust of that noted greatest American politican of the 20th century, er British poltician Winston Churchill

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

This is an interesting piece of analysis. Pity the Obama administration as they take on the role of Don Quixote slaying Windmills.

They come off as a bit desperate when they respond to every little tidbit and opinion.

Perhaps 'insecure' would be a better word to describe them.

Posted by: get8329 | September 16, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I think it's clear that Forbes is run by bigots.

Posted by: rbe1 | September 16, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

OK lcarter0311,

You are starting to sound a little angry. You are correct that Bush approved an expansion of government. I respect a number of things he did but not that. The fact though is that in a very short time Obama has expanded government many times that of Bush. You can make the case that 9-11 and the wars were part of the reason for the Bush expansion. Agree or disagree with those policies but that was a big factor. Has Obama changed any policy regarding the wars? No, but he has wildly expanded the bureaucracy, reach and entitlements of the federal government. There is no serious economist who will claim that our current state is sustainable. Too many promised entitlements and no environment to support the economic growth to fund them

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Psychological theories (analyses) of political figures are not so far out in left field (or right field) as Mr. Gibbs seeks to protest. in fact, they are an element of historical analysis. among the first was a well written psychological profile of Hitler written in the 1960s, and later psychological theory analyses of Stalin followed (including by the noted Russian historian Medvedev). the psychological roots of Honest Abe have also been probed by historians. so really, Mr. Gibbs, get a life: such analyses of politicians is a worthy field of study (basically, what makes these guys tick? what makes them psychopathic? what makes them make war? (such as Hitler) ...or generally avoid war (such as Stalin)...other psychological theories would also be welcomed on Castro, Hugo Chavez, the President of Iran and Mrs. Merkle in Germany (quite a few German writers have assessed her life growing up in East Germany with a preacher for a father, and how it affects her current way of handling economic issues especially).

Posted by: RoguesPalace | September 16, 2010 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The only thing surprising about the article is that Charles Krauthammer didn't write it.

Posted by: mattintx | September 16, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza's article is a "psychological theory" as he himself calls it. In other words, it's pure anti-Obama daydreamy BS. I read the book "Dreams From My Father" and got out of it nothing like what D'Souza claims to see in it. Question: How is a conservative think-tank member qualified to come up with a "psychological theory" about anyone? Is D'Souza a psychologist? Has he ever even sat down and talked to Pres. Obama? The fact that someone wholly unqualified to do so could claim to "psychoanalyze" the president, and that so many would buy it lock, stock, and barrel, says even more about those who buy it than it does about D'Souza. They hate the idea of Pres. Barack Obama so much that they're willing to accept any negative thing said about him, no matter how outrageous or ridiculous. It's becoming more obvious by the day why conservatives have no new ideas. All of their think-tank people have apparently been put to work coming up with anti-Obama screeds and paranoid fantasies, and have no time for thoughts about policy.

Posted by: bienefes | September 16, 2010 3:31 PM | Report abuse

No maggots, you didn't explain it to me.

You see, I smiled because you go by the handle of maggots while commenting on the gutter where slime grows while attempting to malign conservatives.

I have had the the misfortune of seeing maggots infest produce and then thrown it away. At other times I have smelled the stench of rotting animal flesh which was crawling with maggots. In both cases the maggots were doing their jobs as they disposed of organic material.

Then there are human maggots, like yourself. You whine and complain about not having anything but do nothing more than infest society with your demands for a living. Unwilling to work yet you eat the productive members of society and as such you become less than a maggot.

You see, you are unable to rise to the level of a true maggot because they are beneficial organisms in nature. You, on the other hand, are merely rotting flesh that soils and degrades a productive society.

I Hope that clears up any misunderstanding you might have had regarding my previous comment.

Posted by: dmacwired | September 16, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Note the following from the article: "As someone who spent his first 17 years in India, [D'Souza] says he feels 'an eerie similarity to my own background' in examining a president who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia."

For all those who are saying it's "racist" to refer to Mr. D'Souza's Indian upbringing ... well, he raised the subject himself.

Posted by: PLozar | September 16, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Once again the little 'KOOL' Lee from India is tryin to endear himself to the rabid far right with another silly book. This clown has seen his book sales drop since 9/11- after all many normal Americans will take him for Al Quada- so he is tryin to get the focus off of little nerdy looking brown skins like him by writing some garbage about Obama. However with the massive amount of islamic "crap" infuriating most of the country he's going to find out his attempt to escape the spotlight will fail....once again...

Posted by: logcabnnut | September 16, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Fibbs and Obama,what a pair.

Posted by: Satch2 | September 16, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Mr. D'Souza is a person that has some issues with self hate. It is a fact that Indians like "light colored" people better than "dark colored people", a prime example of cultural racism that sets in early. I am a proud Indian American (who married an Indian American who immigrated to this country), so I happen to know something about this subject. This light skin obession is what is talked about when you get married, and usually the first comment made when a baby is born. Looking at Mr. D'Souza it is apparent that he wishes he was lighter. Hey Dinesh, you might have an American accent and married an American woman (nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with marrying someone who was not born in America), but your white Republican friends still see you as an Indian. In fact, if they had there way, you wouldn't have been allowed to immigrate to this country for fear you would take some "true American's" job. So go ahead and support the racist clowns and spread their propaganda. If they get the chance, they will have no problem deporting your brown self back to the "motherland" no matter how American you think you are.

Posted by: BB1978 | September 16, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I agree to Robert Gibbs response as "new low" and truly extremely low of those who are supposedly intellectual and historian. It details the ignorance of the likes of Gingrich who thinks of the impossible "in God we trust." After being honored as a great historian, I would advice him to renew his relationship with God who knew President Obama and Gingrich before landing on this earth. Please Mr. Gingrich, read Psalm 139 and you would begin to understand this earth we live in spiritually other than your selfish egomaniac thinking. God is in charge. I know how you mean fully resent President Obama, his color and African background. President Obama's Presidency speaks deeply only to the spiritually wise of God who also said "we wicked people, and also not good and fallen short of his glory." Gingrich believed it’s impossible for African, and linked with slavery and colonialism to be a President and First Lady of United States of America. Praise to God in the highest that it happened in his lifetime and if he wish, must question the wisdom of God who allowed such a great landmark history. Fear God Gingrich and no that it is the same God who created you is the same God who created the deceiver (Satan) to cause havoc in the lives of men. Again, Fear God and be humble.

Posted by: nyankumase | September 16, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the author hit a nerve. How's that hopey changey thing working out for the boys in the big white house now? Everyday we learn more truths about these people and the schemes for the destruction of America as we know it. Hey Gibbs, you can not run from the truth. Everyone isn't going to believe your cover stories. As a matter of fact less and less are even listening to you. Have a nice life. See you all in November 10 and 12 if your lucky.

Posted by: Americannnnn | September 16, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza hit the nail squarely on the head.

Sane and reasonable people already knew who is Obama's spritual mentor.

For those public school educated kool-aide drinkers, Dinesh is using Obama's own memoir and puts in perspective Obama's actions with his own writings.

Obama is really behaving like an AFRICAN thug - like Idi Amin - when he doesn't like the commentary on his Presidency: summon the trouble maker from FORBES.
When you can't refute the article, throw tantrums.

Posted by: vatodio | September 16, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

ROFLMFAO.......Well, Robert Gibbs, all I can say is.....It's a stunning thing, to see our President and his staff, so lacking in truth and fact, I don't think, I know it represents a new low!!!
Oblama and Gibbs are in such a thick cloud they actually believe that we are too stupid to see that they are the liars, they are the ones that misrepresent things, they've been caught many times!!! We don't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of Oblama, Gibbs or anyone else in this administration!!
The Saul Alinsky tactics of Isolate and attack are no longer effective, because we see you for what you are, bent on destroying and bankrupting America to force us into a global world order!! This will not work as long as Oblama and Gibbs and the rest of this inept administration keep doing what every enemy to America has always done!! And as long as they keep doing that, America will prevail and will continue to be the beacon of freedom and hope

Posted by: ubuibi | September 16, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

left winger Kurtz a product of the left wing Chicago Tribune - geez - I'm sure his "facts" are correct. He says that the Forbes article is factually wrong yet I did not see anywhere in the article where a passage was presented and proven wrong. How can ANYONE know what is good for business who's never been in a business that requires you to make money? You just have to be a MORON to believe someone who sits behind a desk at a college knows more about business than someone who has to get up at 5am and work until 6 or 7pm to keep his business up and running does. Those that can't do teach - those that can't teach - teach economics

Posted by: AV1RICK | September 16, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"and I discover they come from Fox or from someone who has no credentials other than being right wing and anti-Democrat"

Liberals should know how the media has been trying to influence people's political views, as is has been one of their favorite tools for many, many years. Now that the tables are turning, they want to shut it down. The only reason Fox goes so far to the right is to counterbalance so much media influence that is so far to the left.


Posted by: nofreelunch | September 16, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I get a feeling some holywood homo will now do a niniseries on the trials and tribulations of the half dark prince of fools. Obama staring as Obama. He can put the Oscar with Nobel.

Posted by: termlimits | September 16, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

BTW I agree with those who say that this was ill-considered criticsm, not because it was wrong, but because it is bad form. The President is indeed responsible for the image that he is thin-skinned. Of course he could hardly have picked a man so unsuited for his position as Gibbs.

As a Democrat, I can agree with some of the criticisms of his work, without going off the deep end. The posters above who try to mkae the point that the Founding Fathers really weren't anti-colonial is just such ridiculous criticism. It would no doubt surprise many posters to find out that our cozy relationship with Great Britain is a post Civil War invention of the rich who thought of themselves as an American aristocracy, not an attitude of the American people up until that time.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Once Gibbs is out of the White House and looking for a job, he then will tell the truth how Obama has lied and cheated the American people.

Posted by: koln100 | September 16, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

It's good to know the depths that corporate Americans will stoop to in order to keep their money. We would be better off without them.

I was about to vote Republican in the fall, but not now. This is nothing more than an intellectual endeavor in racist thinking, akin to the Bell Curve.

Posted by: mclovin | September 16, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Lovely, just lovely! The venom in these comments is just plain lovely... yep, bible thumping righteous men. Just lovely!

When one crackpot claims he is not an American... he does not respond and other crackpots joins in and says "see he is not American." Then he responds to another outlandish report, and they say, "thou protests too much...so it must be true". Damn if you do damned if you don't.

Obama was influenced by his father? At 2 years old?

The shocking thing is that people actually believe these things?

I wonder what is the next topic of discussion for Flat Earth Society meeting...

Posted by: samiismoni14 | September 16, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Since Kenya and Pakistan are being dragged into this, might I point out that in both countries anti-colonial means anti-British. This is because of British colonial occupation of both countries.
So even if Obama were to share these views (and I agree with those that say the evidence is really lacking here), Obama sides with the founding fathers here. There is indeed good reason to be enraged towards England for colonialism, which mixed up Africa's tribes and left that continent a divided mess.
Since there are efforts in the Forbes article of making an intellectual argument here, might I also point out that it would be very awkward for Obama to be pro-colonial, especially since this is a contention Osama bin Laden makes about American foreign policy.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | September 16, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse


Who would know better than Robert Gibbs, Mr. MISINFORMATION, about speaking or publishing 'information' totally devoid of fact or truth.

Posted by: esquire2 | September 16, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Here's a "Psychological Theory" for you D'Souza....you consistently, as an immigrant, carry water for the repubs so you will be accepted by the white tribe. So, did you enjoy Ann Coulter?? when you dated??

Also, aren't you guilty of malpractice since your not even a friggin psychologist? You wingnuts are ridiculous. You & Forbes should both be sued. Then similar idiots would think twice before writing books,etc. analyzing others.

Posted by: carolerae48 | September 16, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Having read the article, it seemed pretty tame and offered an explanation to some of the seemingly inexplicable actions taken by this president.

Posted by: NYKeith | September 16, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

This is all part of the victim-oppressor ideology that Obama and his administration use to provoke divisiveness and drive a need for "change".

Dinesh was the oppressor for all of a minute until he didn't fit the demographic profile most hated by Obama. Enter Newt and Steve Forbes - perfect fit. We have new oppressors for Obama the victim to demonize.

Who is next? Chuck Norris is a conservative. But be careful Obama:

Giraffes were created when Chuck Norris uppercut a horse.

Posted by: Charley_XF | September 16, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

AV1Rick wrote:

"He says that the Forbes article is factually wrong yet I did not see anywhere in the article where a passage was presented and proven wrong"

Read my post above about the lies about the Petrobras loan. It would be obnoxious of me to keep posting it over again. LOL

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Reading these comments, some Americans seem only able to view the world with a right or left bias? The world is not black or white, but many shades of gray. I support some conservative ideas, some progressive ideas, and I don't identify myself as right or left, Republican or Democrat. Have I somehow evolved past these ignorant partisans?

Posted by: BornAgainAmerican | September 16, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

And why would Mr. Obama not be opposed to colonialism? Am I missing something here? Or is the United States going to slide back into the colonial era again? When I was a kid in the 1940s (that's right: I'm an old timer) colonialism was a hot topic. The British engaged in it. The French were lousy with colonies. But then the French are lousy anyway. The Germans had just been forced to give up its few colonial possessions. The Belgians had one colony of any importance, and we know how King Leopold enjoyed ruling it. The Dutch had even more possessions than anyone else.

Now, if I understand the Forbes position correctly Mr. Obama is angry because we have too many colonial possessions? Or not enough? Or maybe it's just that Forbes is an organ of the Republicna Party and they want to make sure they can give Mr. Obama a black eye just because they can?

Posted by: agrossman1 | September 16, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

SIGH... d'souza and michelle malkin - cut from the same cloth - people born outside the US who try to fit in by being anti-immigrant, anti-colored or anti-obama so that they can fit in with the white race - they're trying to show how american they are. twisted argument but as twisted as d'souza's "psychological analysis" of obama from his writings

it is as if "thou doth protest too much"

Posted by: harrytam | September 16, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

lol He got his world view from his dad...the dad that abandoned him at 2...the dad that he met once in his life after the age of 2. The wingnuts are at it again, they don't have any ideology to run on, so they make up craziness. Ronald Reagan didn't accomplish a single thing in 8 years, and saying that you're Indian doesn't mean you're not engaging in race baiting.

Posted by: nsu1203 | September 16, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I do not know whether it colonialism or whatever. Have not read D'Souza's book. BUT, I read Obama's book and back then (2008) I decided the he should have titled his book "Nightmares from My Father".

BTW, if any of you want to read "unhinged" will find Obama Sr. paper here :http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Posted by: TheTruth13 | September 16, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

When I read D'souza's feature, all the pieces fell into place. I just could not understand how this president did/does not "get" America and Americans. I wish he could do some reflecting and take some of this to heart but no doubt he is incapable of self-awarness. Too late for him, but I hope it is not too late to save America from this flawed and strange man.

Posted by: Cyn-VaBch | September 16, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"Reading these comments, some Americans seem only able to view the world with a right or left bias? The world is not black or white, but many shades of gray. I support some conservative ideas, some progressive ideas, and I don't identify myself as right or left, Republican or Democrat. Have I somehow evolved past these ignorant partisans?"

No.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with being anti-colonialism? People tend to forget that, historically, America and the American people were, and still are, against colonialism and colonialist powers! When President Woodrow Wilson insisted at the Paris Peace Conference after WW1 on freedom for people under colonial rule, the colonialist powers, led by UK and France, were not happy. But People around the world applauded and looked up to America! Wilson's 14 points "strategy" should be the guiding principles of US foreign policy. Frankly, the Fascists, Nazis, Gingrichs and "pastors" Jones do not represent the true American values!

Posted by: editor4tonio | September 16, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh d'Souza is really a paranoid....

As an Indian of Goa (ex-Portugese colony) descent, he claims to be born in Bombay.
(I prefer old names because I'm +70yrs old and graduated during Eisenhower/Kennedy period).

I went over to Forbes to read his paranoid essay and bastardization of factual evidence. It's a real pathetic piece of (racial)jealousy that such a multi-kulti blackman made it to Oval Office - while Dinesh is still dreaming of his Portugese ancestry!

Posted by: hariknaidu | September 16, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Based on the article, I actually think D'Souza's misunderstands Obama, much like the Obamaphiles do.

The truth is, Obama is not as complicated or interesting as this theory supposes. His blood, race, parentage, etc. have very little to do with his ideas, just like his experiences have little to do with them.

Plain and simple, he's a mediocre Ivy League graduate who gobbled up the liberal pabulum that his professors dished out to him. He has no original thoughts, no introspective analysis, no noble convictions. He's a man-child who sees the world as a collection of examples that prove his professors right.

Liberals, socialists, communists, anti-Americans and atheists educated him, mentored him, praised him and showcased him. He thinks as they would have him think and agrees that his detractors are ignorant, evil or irrelevant.

So D'Souza's digging too deep. Obama is still just the narrow-minded, self-indulgent college kid who annoyed all the people around him. You know, the ones who lived paycheck to paycheck, served in the military, or just endured the work and challenges that life dealt them.

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Did obama's father really beat 2 of his 4 wives? Did he kill another guy in a drunken driving accident? Did he lose his legs in another drunken driving accident? Did he die in another drunken driving accident? Were these all dreams from my father?

Posted by: jibe | September 16, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh d'Souza is really a paranoid....

As an Indian of Goa (ex-Portugese colony) descent, he claims to be born in Bombay.

[I prefer old names because I'm +70yrs old and graduated during Eisenhower/Kennedy period.]

I went over to Forbes to read his paranoid essay and bastardization of factual evidence.

It's a real pathetic piece of (racial)jealousy and reasoning that such a multi-kulti blackman made it to the Oval Office -while Dinesh is still dreaming of his Portugese ancestry!

Posted by: hariknaidu | September 16, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Boy when their guy is under attack they circle the wagons. Had this been an article about Bush that was unflattering, the liberal moonbats would have praised it and demanded a Pulitzer.

Posted by: jaysonwilson | September 16, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Having read the article, it seemed pretty tame and offered an explanation to some of the seemingly inexplicable actions taken by this president.

Posted by: NYKeith | September 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

OK lcarter0311,

You are starting to sound a little angry. You are correct that Bush approved an expansion of government. I respect a number of things he did but not that. The fact though is that in a very short time Obama has expanded government many times that of Bush. You can make the case that 9-11 and the wars were part of the reason for the Bush expansion. Agree or disagree with those policies but that was a big factor. Has Obama changed any policy regarding the wars? No, but he has wildly expanded the bureaucracy, reach and entitlements of the federal government. There is no serious economist who will claim that our current state is sustainable. Too many promised entitlements and no environment to support the economic growth to fund them

Posted by: AfghanVeteran |

~~~

What entitlements?

Reforming the Nations HC System, which already included Medicare and Medicaid. He didn't add those Gov't Programs onto the HC System, they were already there and nor did he expand them. If anything he wanted them Reformed (Improved) so that Private HC Industry (Insurance Companies and Pharmaceutical) companies can STOP abusing middle class tax payer's and poor people.

It's no different than any other Entity wanted to make their business or operations more efficient and equitable without passing the cost on to innocent people.

So, please tell me again how is HC Reform expansion of government?

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse


Barack Hussein Obama the father left a pregnant wife back in Kenya, which made him a bigamist when he married Barry's pregnant mother. The marriage was later annulled which means Barry's parents were not married when he was born.

Posted by: screwjob21 | September 16, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The Forbes piece begins by calling Obama "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history." That's pretty hard to argue with. Name one who exceeds him.

Posted by: doug7772 | September 16, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

What other president has run to the UN to rat on his own country??? None!!! Whatever he is he is not with us and I wonder what he is doing here. Go back to Kenya, Obama. You don't want us and we don't want a president who squeals like a little pig whenever he is disagreed with.

Posted by: JudiBug | September 16, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

maggots:

That "lie" (I would argue it was an honest mistake) was already admitted to by D'Souza. The link to the original piece was given above (and I've included it again below) so I will wait for you to give us even one factual error.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

The Obama administration really cannot stand criticism - on any level. And, for some reason, the criticisms always end up to be "racially" oriented.

Sadly, we have a narcissistic, delusional, corrupt fool running the WH and our country. Obama is lacking in credibility, respect, honor, gravitas, leadership and management skills. Perhaps he should take a refresher course in Economics 101!

It might help if he had someone in his administration that actually had a real job, made payroll, ran a company, made a profit and solved real problem. Unfortunately, he has populated his Czars and cabinet with "think-tank" theorist, not doers!!!!!!

Posted by: magsthecat1 | September 16, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

I was born in Hawaii in 1940 when it was not a state. At that time it was a U.S. Territory. My parents, fearing that my Hawaiian birth might prohibit me from becoming President of the U.S., were able to record my birth in their home state of Illinois. Accordingly, my birth certificate shows I was born in Illinois.
My parents left Hawaii when I was six and I lived in Illinois until I was thirteen. I lived in Memphis until I was 30. I returned to Hawaii at the age of 43 and lived there for ten years. That gave me enough time to understand and love the state. I have read a lot about Obama and I voted for him in 2008. It is clear that his birth father had very little influence upon him. He was probably more influenced by his Indonesia step father and by his maternal grandparents both of whom were from Kansas. He went to high school in Honolulu which also probably influenced him a great deal. His high school friends were mostly people with Asian ancestors. Hawaii also has a lot of people of mixed race. To some extent Hawaii was a U.S. colony and, as a result, most Hawaiians are anti-colonialist.
I also know that most Americans are anti-colonialist remembering, of course, that the U.S. began as a British colony.
What is meant when it is said that Obama is "anti-business". Does that mean he is against the rich and powerful who control the U.S. I wish that were true but since his election he has supported the status quo. He is a puppet of what Eisenhower called the "Military Industrial" complex. That is why we still have more than 50,000 troops in Iraq and thousands of private contractors. That is why he has expanded the war in Afghanistan. That is why when the Department of Defense speaks Obama listens.

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | September 16, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

To my right wing hacks, please note:

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

Posted by: VoterfromIL | September 16, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I am still awaiting for that first coherent, fact-based, non-cliched criticism about Obama. He does not walk on water to be sure, but D'Souza's drivel is typical. The thing is the Right cannot attack Obama (or Democratice policies) on policy terms because a)The voters they need depend on them b) To, for example, comment on problems implementing Health Care reform would be too difficult for Republicans to say and for their targeted followers to really understand. I do not get it myself really and I support it, generally. D'Souza might once have made a bit of sense but he is obviously a hacker. What on earth does Kenyan thinking mean, anyway? As others have said, isn't the USA the first anti-Colonialist project? I also recall somewhere another hack accusing Obama of representing British interests! What next, will he be French? Dutch? Canadian, eh?

Posted by: adolbe | September 16, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

BAck in the 80s, he was known as Distort D'Newsa

Posted by: edlharris | September 16, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311, your question:

"So, please tell me again how is HC Reform expansion of government?"

The fact that you ask this shows a deep lack of understanding about what the 2000 page monstrousity actually calls for such as 10s of thousands of new IRS agents to police everyone into buying a product whether they want it or not. It also IS an entitlement which will GIVE about 20 million people insurance whether they are American or not or whether they want it or not. It also limits what insurance can charge and what doctors can charge thus creating a "free" product for millions of people who have no resources to pay for it.

Summary: It is a huge expansion of government size and power and an unsustainable entitlement.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Barrack Hussein Obama (AKA Barry Soetoro)'s father was a Marxist Kenyan anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism, income-redistributive politician. Barrack Hussein Obama wrote a book entitled, "The Dream of My Father". What was his father's DREAM? His father's dream were important enought to prompt Mr. Obama to write a book about his Dad, right? Oh, please Obama tell us what was the DREAM of your Dad? Obama, are you making good on the Dream of your Dad? Who is to say? Please let us know.

Posted by: ArticlesofFreedomdotUS | September 16, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Yes, this "Black African Kenyan, anti- colonial mixed White President, married to this lady with slavery ancestry," did not juju White America to vote him. So why are some of you now distraught and angry like Gingrich? Where were Gingrich and DeSouza when President Obama was campaigning for the Presidency? Like him or not, this Kenyan anti-colonialist is your President and must deal with it.

Posted by: nyankumase | September 16, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Yes, this "Black African Kenyan, anti- colonial mixed White President, married to this lady with slavery ancestry," did not juju White America to vote him. So why are some of you now distraught and angry like Gingrich? Where were Gingrich and DeSouza when President Obama was campaigning for the Presidency? Like him or not, this "Kenyan anti-colonialist" is your President and must deal with it.

Posted by: nyankumase | September 16, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

doug7772 wrote:

"The Forbes piece begins by calling Obama "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history." That's pretty hard to argue with. Name one who exceeds him."

Well, off the top of my head, Thomas Jefferson. He is the leader in the club house among presidents for being anti-business.

He wanted us to be a nation of yeoman farmers, and hated banks, business, and credit. In this he actually outdid Andrew Jackson who was also extremely anti-business.

This may have been because Jefferson was such a collosal business failure in his own life. He had champagne taste and a beer budget and so was always in debt to British and French creditors for his lavish lifetsyle. He would have gone to debtors' prison had he not been Thomas Jefferson. He also vigorously opposed Alexander Hamilton who laid the foundation for American capitalism.

He actually had a law passed during his administration that FORBADE American vessels from departing to any foreign port. I was supposed to prevent war with Great Britain, but all it really did was wreck the economy and not prevent war.

I'm sorry for the fact based interlude. I'll try to keep it to a minimum in the future.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"The Forbes piece begins by calling Obama "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history." That's pretty hard to argue with. Name one who exceeds him. "

Posted by: doug7772

George W. Bush, for starters. Business and Finance collapsed under his rule and "anti-Business" Obama had to bail the rich out. Without his support Wall St. would be where? Does Forbes think we are all Tea Party stupid??

Posted by: adolbe | September 16, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Souza is yet ANOTHER freak who believe the USURPER was born in the USA. Heard him on Beck yesterday and literally turned it off. Beck has lost his mind on the usurper issue.

Posted by: oustusurpers | September 16, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

The hatred expressed in many of the comments is troubling. Our country has some serious problems, and I don't think that hating one another is likely to help anything. Disagreement is sometimes beneficial; hatred rarely is.

Posted by: dnice1 | September 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It must be full moon. The right wing have a plan.

Shout as loud as you can, and hopefully someone will hear you.

These are serious times, that demand serious men and women to step forward.

The Republican party have no ideas, and no vision for America.

Posted by: mrcjstubbs | September 16, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
**************************

The bust was just a loan to the Bush administration. It was not a gift to our country. Bush and Tony were inseperable and both were on the wrong track.

Posted by: kelfield | September 16, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Gibbs and all the socialists now in the White House forget their relentless and disgusting bashing of George Bush when he was in the White House as our last President. So its ok for the liberal socialist regressives to bash Bush but when someone takes issue with obama its now anti-American or un Patriotic or maybe Nazi like? Democrats...Liberals...Socialists...Marxists whatever your term for them are hypocrits of the highest order.

And Gibbs is right up there on the top...they all lie and try to bring down our great nation. November 2nd is 47 days away and counting. The People are coming for you and you'll be held accountable. We will vote the bums out. Count on it.

Posted by: killerbee32 | September 16, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

When did Dinesh D'Souza become either a psycho historian or a psychotherapist? Answer: Never.

When did Steve Forbes become a journalist rather than a businessman? Answer: Never.

When did Newt Gingrich become a statesman? Answer: Never.

When did President Obama become Kenyan? Answer: Never.

Whatever my disagreements with the President, his American citizenship via Hawaiian birth has been widely and definitively published. He worships regularly at a Christian church and by reproducible report is not and has never been Muslim.

I find it despicable that so many writers debase the Presidency of the United States in the name of patriotism. President Obama may be fair game, but false patriots may be the death of us yet. I fear them far more than I fear our clumsy President.

Posted by: bloommarko4 | September 16, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza and Ann Coulter? Talk about a marriage made in Heaven-They'd probably be divorced in six months over the question of who hates Liberals more.
Steve Forbes however, should be ashamed of printing D'Souza's drivel-Forbes must be angry with the idea of needing to pay a more equitable Tax rate if Obama gets his rich guy Bush Tax rebate canceled.

Posted by: oregonbirddog | September 16, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"That "lie" (I would argue it was an honest mistake) was already admitted to by D'Souza. The link to the original piece was given above (and I've included it again below) so I will wait for you to give us even one factual error"

Hmmm, I'm back to being a maggot again? so when is "an honest mistake" not a factual error? Also, there ins't any correction in the article, D'Souza only admitted it verbally when cornered.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Facts:

Obama:
--pushing to have tax rates raised for those earning over 250K (job killer)
--force people to buy health ins, create thousands IRS agents to enforce (government overreach, unsustainable entitlement)
--sues Arizona for enforcing the law
--ignores sanctuary cities that violate the law
--ignores New Black Panthers who intimidate voters with weapons
--pushing for economy killing energy taxes over junk science beliefs
--drilling moratorium forced despite losing in court (job killer and law violation)
--SCOTUS justices who believe in violating 2nd amendment (now official record)
--massive stimulus that had no positive effect on employment and not spent as advertised

Just a small sampling but all facts and all policy. No fiction, no delusion, no racism. All together a bleak picture and a poor performance for a president. This doesn't even get into the general trend to diminish the US Constitution in favor of international law and the effort to appease Iran, N Korea, Venezuela etc. All give great reason to vote out all dems and rinos.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Hi maggots:

Thank-you for the lazy thinking. It's a lot easier to call someone names, like "liberal", than to actually think. Even worse is to fall back on that tired-old method of assuming that someone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal. Starting a sentence with "Liberals..." is almost as bad as Godwin's law.

As I like to say, calling me a liberal in many ways is far from the truth, as I make GW Bush look like a communist (a little hyperbole never hurts).

As for D'Souza, his conservative and intellectual credentials are rather poor (I don't consider the conservative-medial industrial complex to be serious, intellectual, or conservative). Heck, the guy doesn't even know what a psychological theory is. Instead of a theory, he comes up with a pseudo-hypothesis -- pseudo, because it isn't testable, and hence it's not scientific a hypothesis, and therefore not a psychological hypothesis. You'd think as the head of a college ("King's College") he'd know something about science and logical arguments. Instead he seems to have learned a lot of nonsense and sophistry from his former bed-bedding Ann Coulter.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

In the light of the day without filters, truth eventually prevails...always has, always will.

Posted by: rbblum | September 16, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that should have been jesusHhong, not maggots.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Okay...does this mean all you white guys and girls have a PRO-colonialism mentality? Or is it that all Western culture has a pro-colonialism mentality. And what is that anyway? It sounds a little like Limbaugh's "slave blood theory".

Is it White Supremacy? That it was inevitable or prophetic that Anglo cultures would invade, colonialize, occupy, people of color nations for the purpose of stealing their wealth?

I just don't see that Pro-colonialism mentality is a good thing. And if they are saying his views or proclivities come by way of DNA - then it's all over folks. The best and brightest are delusional nincompoops.

Posted by: marvel777us | September 16, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

In the light of the day without filters, truth eventually prevails...always has, always will.

Posted by: rbblum | September 16, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Pffft...jokes on them. I only read Forbes for the pictures.

Posted by: pswift00 | September 16, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz, per usual, spends most of his post relaying the book's outlandish criticism. Working for the man, Howie.

Posted by: bob16 | September 16, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Forbes Magazine (its non-financial content, anyway) hasn't been worth reading since the old man (Malcolm) died. His son (Steve) is a doctinaire dolt, and the magazine reflects that.

Read the investment stuff, forget the political junk.

Posted by: threeoaksgone | September 16, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

screwjob:

I've never seen any document "officially" annuling the Obama-Dunham marriage.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Is the author so insecure about himself and his ethnicity that he would use Klan-type silliness? What does this also say about Forbes (owned by Stevie Flat tax). Like I said I am waiting for the day when I hear/read intelligent criticism of President, or, I have been waiting my whole life for an intelligent bigot. Still looking for fossil evidence (Oh, but real Christians do not believe in fossils, yes)

Posted by: adolbe | September 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Most of the commentators who posted before me did not bother to click the link and read the article. This is a shame. Anti-colonialism is just one possibility that the author put forward to explain why Obama has taken rather strange actions on issues from health care, bank bail out, to the US space programs.

I am very surprised to learn that the NASA chief made extensive comment on improving relations with the Islamic world, and letting the space program lag unfunded. Obama has proposed to reduce NASA funding to fund inner city schools as a candidate, but backed down later after the Florida senator promised no vote for him from Florida if he insisted. Since he took office, Obama has taken action to cut the human space technology, which got support from the science community, but failed to provide enough fund for the space science programs and threatens the leadership of the US in many fronts for science and technology. I can only conclude Obama is the first anti-NASA president since NASA's establishment.

It is even more surprising that the WH came out to rebuke the article. It is unnecessary unless what is said in the article is true?

Posted by: sgr_astar | September 16, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

'[D'Souza's] argument that the president was heavily influenced by the late Barack Obama Sr. is a "psychological theory."...
Obama Sr. abandoned the family when his son was 2'

As a psychologist, I can assert that in most cases a child harbors resentment, or has little feeling for a parent that abandons him/her at an early age, and especially so if the parent has limited contact thereafter with the child. Obama has gone on record explaining that he felt the necessity of following in his father's footsteps in terms of a Harvard education, but never at the expense of a family, as Obama Sr. had done. The so-called 'psychological theory' explaining Obama's adoption of Barack Obama Sr.'s anti- colonial ideology is risible.

This is more likely Forbes' taking umbrage at Obama's Finance Reform Legislation, especially after an initial corporate courtship.

Posted by: jimsillan | September 16, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Una otra Ofay
Una otra Obamaphobe

Posted by: neec13 | September 16, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

That post was directed to the (self-named) "maggots" not you. I also never claimed that D'Souza / Forbes corrected the actual article. I'm asking for any OTHER error in fact.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The best way to confirm that conservatives are on the correct path is when the lunatic-left simultaneously starts foaming at the mouth, wildly flailing their arms and begin shouting their usual "racist", "bigot", etc. BS.

Clearly, D’Souza's analysis and comments must be exactly on the mark.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | September 16, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Many of the blogger here seem suprised by the strong feelings against Obama. Obama has incurred the wrath on those of us who are moderate to conservative. His anti-business label means he has done everything along with the Democrats to increase the costs of business, and make the future cost of business high with the ceiling on costs unknown. He pushed healthcare when few wanted it and he pushed it instead of jobs which everyone wanted. The stimulus for jobs was mainly to bailout state,local, UAW, unions to payback their support. Cap and Tax as it is affectionatel called, is an overreach by the EPA to insert government in areas Congress has not authorized. The $862 billion stimulus package grew government by 17 percent while the private sector lost 8 million jobs. People are angry at this growth of big government.They are angry about the czar's running the country bypassing Congressional approval, at backroom deals by the Dems to get legislation passed and by a healthcare bill that does nothing to control costs, but does reduce payments which will result in reduced services. The people are angry that the Dems appear to want everyone to be poor and subservient to government so the people can be controlled. When more than 50% of the people are employed by governement or take handouts from government, the voters will vote in those that like big governement. That's what the Democrats want. A subervient, poor population they can control. Obama doesn't appear to like the rich because they are independent of his control. The media elected the most inexperienced President in 60 years. The are already trying to influence the November election, by stories in the press against Tea Party candidates. Will the voters be tricked by the media again?

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Surprise, surprise...a Right-wing magazine speaking crap right before an election. Obama's father left the family when he Prez was 2 years of age. Hello????

Posted by: cile92 | September 16, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his puppet Gibbs are serial liars. Here is one of the most egregious lies:
When the Lockerbie bomber was released, the White House feigned indignation, when, in fact, Obama ok'd the release. We need a president who is not quite so anti-American, enough experimenting with inexperienced, extortionist "community organizers" with an obvious distaste for freedom and capitalism.
Ron Reale
realetybytes.com

Posted by: realetybytes | September 16, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

OK. I read the posts. I get it now.

1. Obama is not influenced by his Kenyan father's beliefs.
2. Obama is not influenced by anybody - not Ayres, not Wright, not Alinsky.
3. The colonists were anti-colonial.
4. Obama is an America booster. He loves America as is.
5. Obama is pro-business and good for business.
6. Cap and Trade and Obamacare are GREAT for the economy. Jobs, jobs, jobs and more.

And let's not forget,

7. Obama's IQ "IS OFF THE CHARTS". All 57 states agree.

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

lcarter0311, your question:

"So, please tell me again how is HC Reform expansion of government?"

The fact that you ask this shows a deep lack of understanding about what the 2000 page monstrousity actually calls for such as 10s of thousands of new IRS agents to police everyone into buying a product whether they want it or not. It also IS an entitlement which will GIVE about 20 million people insurance whether they are American or not or whether they want it or not. It also limits what insurance can charge and what doctors can charge thus creating a "free" product for millions of people who have no resources to pay for it.

Summary: It is a huge expansion of government size and power and an unsustainable entitlement.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran

~~~

Sounds like you have been listening to too much SLANTED FIXED NEWS. It's like Sarah Palin telling folks that the Bill contains Death Panel's. Right?

Listen Bud, I read the Bill and no where's in the Bill does it mention any hiring of 10,000 IRS enforcement agents, and as far as those limitations of what Insurance companies and Doctors can charge and what they can't is already in the system already and has been now for several years. There may have needed to be some adjustments made to the medical system, such as as not charging people for band-aids or a cup of water and crap like that. But, the bottom line is there are certain things right now that Insurance companies should not be charging us for, or over charging us.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 16, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I'm afriad Mr. D'Sousa is an Indian immigrant who is still gaga over America's material wealth and who understands little of America's historical struggles. I think his world view is not exactly consistent with those whose ancestors worked hard to keep from being ruled by the British Governors and corporate tyrants.

Mr. D'Sousa, anti-colonialism is in our genes. We have ALWAYS been anti-colonialists.

Posted by: commentator2 | September 16, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

When will the Post and other media wake up to the fact that in their haste to sell newspapers and internet clicks, they've undermined journalism by given any credence to these crackpots.

Beck, Limbaugh, Palin - they are entertainers with interests in selling themselves. They were not elected, are not electable and should play no role in any serious policy debate. They warrant now newspaper space at all.

Posted by: crawfam | September 16, 2010 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Poor Obama worshippers. You are too emotionally invested in him and/or redistributive ideology. You are incapable of seeing that other educated, smart and open minded people have serious problems with his/your policies and ideology. You feel compelled to brush it off as racism or (pick your)phobia. Work harder on developing sound policies and communicating them to the American people rather than calling all of your opponents racists. Or don't.

Posted by: AfghanVeteran | September 16, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

If the shoe fits, where it.

Posted by: MikeS651 | September 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse
___________________________________________

Dude, you can't spell, so how can you criticize anybody? I don't know "where" you crawled out from - maybe somewhere where you don't "wear" shoes?

Posted by: rhalter3633 | September 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

steve1231:

He was just named as President of The King's College last month. Regardless, you don't think that someone who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth has "impressive" credentials? Funny, since you just criticized someone else: "It's a lot easier to call someone names ... than to actually think."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

To those who can't think of anything to say except he is the president deal with it ~~~It is not a matter of whether we want him, he does not want us. How do we deal with that?

I love you Obama but you are still inadequate as President.

Posted by: JudiBug | September 16, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Please do not preach RUSSIA that independent media there gets whipped. Same happens here, just in a more 'civilized' way.

Perhaps Obama needs another Nobel prize (literature?) to rebuild his self esteem.

Oh wait, he's a narcissist.. It's so sad that the 'god loving' hicks do not understand his higher aspirations to turn this country into the USSR.

Posted by: Silly_Willy_Bulldog | September 16, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Reading these comments leaves me with one undeniable fact - This country is full of hateful people.

Posted by: YadaYada1 | September 16, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

doug7772: Nixon was more anti-business. I seem to remember him implementing price-controls, taking us off the gold standard, and all sorts of other nonsense. Obama looks like Reagan in comparison.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I heard an interview with the author. His accounting is logical and compelling. I would definately like to read his book.

Posted by: dcunning30 | September 16, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I would like to remind the limp wingers that it is called dissent not "hate". Deal with it.

Posted by: JudiBug | September 16, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

That this load of hogwash even made it into a mainstream magazine shows how low the level of political discourse has fallen - definitely a sad milestone for the country.

And even if any of D’Souza's wild speculations were true, isn't being "anti-colonial" a GOOD thing? I guess not in D'Souza's world, in which he imagines an orderly world of white colonial masters bringing civilization to the savages.

Of course, I have no proof or evidence that this is really D'Souza's world view - just as he has no evidence to back up his claims about Obama.

Posted by: MidwaySailor76 | September 16, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

jimsillan wrote: "Obama has gone on record explaining that he felt the necessity of following in his father's footsteps in terms of a Harvard education, but never at the expense of a family, ..."

Also, Obama wrote a book called "Dreams of my Father".

jimsillan, Don't trade that psychology degree for a debating degree.

Posted by: pascal64 | September 16, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

commentator2:

Did you even read the D'Souza article? You are REALLY claiming that America has "always been" against rich countries of the West [including, BTW, us] who got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America?

LOL

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Our founding fathers were "anti colonial."

But right wingers are to bone-deep stupid to recognize that.

Posted by: trippin | September 16, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Horrible, just horrible. What our President needs to do is simple: open up his records at Columbia and Harvard, show us which professors he chose to take classes with, let us read a few of his position papers on International Relations, and SHOW US how stupid D'Souza is, by demonstrating a long term, very passionate, very patriotic attachment to American institutions, and particularly the Constitution he was misquoted (no one can argue he was serious, can they) denigrating.

If he fails to do that, then, well, he pretty much forces this sort of speculation, doesn't he? We have nothing else to go on.

You can't hide your past, then complain when people try to fill in the blanks, ESPECIALLY if you happen to be the most powerful elected official in the world.

Posted by: barrycooper1 | September 16, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

MidwaySailor76:

You haven't read the D'Souza piece either? There's plenty of evidence cited (including Obama ordering the head of NASA to make "outreach to Muslims" the top priority). D'Souza even defines what he means by "anticolonialism".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

One thing I will give media outlets credit for: they have figured out what news sells in this era and they never tire from slamming it down our throats. Any garbage and untruth that folks can make up about Obama is what passes as news since 2008. Shameful!

Posted by: luvleep | September 16, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

trippin:

See my questions to MidwaySailor76.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

bethechangeyouwant ... just a word of advice .. you'd have more credibility if you didn't resort to the "race" card in speaking of Rpublicans. Throwing the race card into the conversation is a clear indication that you lack the facts to support your comment.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | September 16, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2: I criticized D'Souza based upon the body (or lack-thereof) of his work. There is nothing wrong with criticizing when you can back it up. Blindly name-calling is a different beast.

Oh, and graduating XYZ is nice and all, but it's what you do after you graduate that matters. Heck, Timothy Leary had a PhD, but I doubt any of us are impressed by his post-graduate work.

Posted by: steve1231 | September 16, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Our Founding Fathers were "anti colonial."

But right wingers are too bone-deep stupid to recognize that.

They talk up the Founding Fathers when the wear those goofy tri-corner hats and wave those stupid "Don't Tread On Me" flags, but now all of a sudden their anti-colonialism is an epithet.

Such is the intelligence of the Tea Party -- they have no clue what they're for or against.

Had any of them taken any classes in civics or history, they wouldn't make themselves out to be such fools.

Posted by: trippin | September 16, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I read D'Souza's peice before the soup hit the fan...I thought it was original and thought provoking.

Posted by: twann9852 | September 16, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

luvleep:

With the exception of Obama not visiting Pakistan until he was in college -- already admitted as an error by D'Souza and, as I pointed out above, not an lie -- please cite to any such "untruth".

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

looks like Obamas chickens have come home to roost

Posted by: tbirdszz | September 16, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2 -- see your local high school civics teacher.

Posted by: trippin | September 16, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Another indication that the truth hurts and also that Obama and his handlers and puppets cannot handle criticism.

Grow up boys and girls of the Obama administration. This is not Candyland in which you function. Put your Chutes and Ladders game away and do something about jobs.

Posted by: apdseal | September 16, 2010 4:56 PM | Report abuse

"Anti colonial" in 1776 meant something completely different than "anti colonial" in 1976. For one thing, AMERICA was not the biggest target of such rage.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the "facts" in this particular story, the FACTS of the Obama Presidency are this: He has critically wounded the American way of life in under 2 years time. His "Transformation of America" has certainly been transformational. We have created 4 trillion dollars of new debt that will grow to 19 trillion by 2020 and will surpass out GDP thus making us insolvent (as if we aren't already). Obama has created a disaster of unemployment, denuded business growth, brought impossible fragility to markets and ruined our international standing both financially and politically. It doesn't matter if you are a "Birther", "Usurper" or whatever! No Conspiracy Needed! Obama has succeeded in transforming America into a giant landfill where dreams become lost...garbage to blow in the breeze. In November 2012, vote for the person with experience and knowledge, not the flavor of the month. In November 2010, transform the House and Senate and take away the keys from Obama so he can't harm us anymore.

Posted by: WisconsinPatriot | September 16, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

WisconsinPatriot:

AMEN!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs = Baghdad Bob

Posted by: NotByinIt | September 16, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Exactly, NotByinIt.

Let's try this one more time:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is the one who has claimed that D'Souza's article is "lacking in truth and fact" (so there must be plenty of examples, right?)

Apart from quibbling about what constitutes "Obama's backing"), Mr. D'Souza has clarified that ONE fact (Obama visited Pakistan while in college, not before he was 17) is in error. So far, however, no one else has point out any other fact(s) in error.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The whole republican mind set is racist. This is pseudo-intellectual bull s**t. If some student was to write the same thing he would get an "F". You really know it is fiction because that idiot Nute Gingrung is vomiting the same filth, and we all know that guy is as smart as a bag or navel lent and about as honest as Stalin. Down with the first amendment and all news organizations who pass this garbage off as news.

Posted by: seasail | September 16, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I admit I am guilty

I am guilty of reading the blogs even tho' i know it just inflames anger and hatred
I am guilty of posting and responding to diatribes even tho by doing so we become mere puppets of media

Dear bloggers,
we should stop blogging. i think we all just get angrier and from some of the posts here, angry to the point of foaming at the mouth.

Owners and large shareholders of media (Fox, WaPo, Forbes, MSNBC) love to inflame us. This is the only way they continue to get viewership/readership and hence fatten their pursestrings.

All bloggers who claim to love your country, stop this hatred. I think all of you know in your heart of hearts, that this is wrong and bad; not only for our country but also for our health.
Let us just be civil and calm. Politics is a dirty game. Obama is no better or worse than any other president. Managing or governing the US is the world's most difficult job. It is not simple. He has to do what he believes is right even if a majority is against him because most of the time doing the right thing is very unpopular. All you great managers out there know this is true. It takes courage to do the right thing and to make unpopular decisions.

It is like having to decide whether to send your bright, talented and passionate kid to college or to use your extremely limited funds to concentrate on finding doctors and experimental drugs for your other dying child whom everyone else have given up hope for.

Posted by: harrytam | September 16, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"With the exception of Obama not visiting Pakistan until he was in college -- already admitted as an error by D'Souza and, as I pointed out above, not an lie -- please cite to any such "untruth"."

Jake, I have already pointed out to you several times that the Petrobras deal was a complete lie. Why do you answer others and not me. I feel rejected! Here it is again:

D'Souza wrote:

"The Administration supports offshore drilling--but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama's backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro--not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil."

The truth is the Import Export Bank makes and guarantees loans to foreign entities to BUY AMERICAN PRODUCTS ONLY! The money supposedly going to explore for Brazilian oil in reality is going to buy American made drilling equipment to drill for oil. Also, as stated in the article above, all of the directors of the IE Bank who MADE the loan are Bush appointees, not Obama's.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 5:18 PM | Report abuse

When will this gang realize that they move these stories along by just responding to them. It's simple. Obama has told so many whoppers that few of his growing ranks of opponents trust him. So when Robbie Gibbs lends the Presidential podium to this story, send even more people out to read it (I have received a dozen copies of it on e-mail). These people read it, then have others read it. And you have the beginnings of reason #2574 why people don't trust President ME and his merry band of hustlers.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza inferiority complex has no bound. Just because he came from a lower Indian caste he thinks can trash Obama by fulminating half baked 'theories' which are no more than lies as debunked by many opinion writer. Steve Forbes is peeved that Obama is pushing for Clinton era tax rates for Forbes and his ilkes. So he gets D'Souza t make him look a solid intellectual in the land of Palin and her types.

Posted by: ere591 | September 16, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Forbes "left the facts on the cutting-room floor" huh? That should be easy to verify:

1) Is the era of big government NOT back?

2) Did Obama NOT run up taxpayer debt in the trillions?

3) Did Obama NOT expand the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy industry?

4) Did Obama NOT personally order NASA Chief Charles Bolden to change the primary mission of America's space agency to be "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world"?

5) Did Bolden NOT say "[Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering"?

I could keep going ...

BTW: how did Gibbs's meeting with Forbes's Washington bureau chief, Brian Wingfield, go?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

gibbs is an excellent example of obama
failing to select the best qualified and
in my view his greatest weakness as a
leader.

Posted by: jimsr121 | September 16, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

seasail and/or ere591:

Please point out the "lie" in any of the following facts from D'Souza's article:

1) Is the era of big government NOT back?

2) Did Obama NOT run up taxpayer debt in the trillions?

3) Did Obama NOT expand the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy industry?

4) Did Obama NOT personally order NASA Chief Charles Bolden to change the primary mission of America's space agency to be "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world"?

5) Did Bolden NOT say "[Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering"?

54465446:

That's not a "lie" -- it's a quibble as I pointed out -- neither D'Souza nor I are going to play a semantic game. If you will review my posts, I've answered EVERY question you've asked me.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

If Obama's father had no run out on him, he would not have had black Marxist mentor and pervert Frank Marshall Davis to twist his mind with so many terrible thoughts. That alone is making him a miserable failure as president of executive office vacations.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hey, MIDWAY SAILOR 76, were you really there? If so we owe you a an immense debt! The Battle Of Midway was the greatest naval battle of the 20th century and the linchpin of our victory in the Pacific. Few people understand how long the odds, and how great the triumph!

(So were you, or did I waste all this? LOL)

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

I read the piece last week I thought he tied up his opinions with facts pretty well. Obama was raised outside the American mainstream. Obama, although he barely knew his father, was still very much drawn to him and his beliefs. Also who could forge the Bolden claim that Nasa's main goal is Muslim betterment?

Obama was born in America but not only is he a Muslim through and through but he hates America.

Posted by: cleancut77 | September 16, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Mikes651 you spell it "wear" as in, if the shoe fits wear it, not if the shoe fits where it. that means: where the blank is my shoe? Before you hurt yourself reading such a pithy article at least learn how to use "wear" and "where" correctly.

Posted by: seasail | September 16, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Here's one. Do you think the few real journalists in Washington, professional, objective, and unbiased respect Robert Gibbs? He exudes the word, hack. He has become the daily face of the Obama machine, and he is such a klutz.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

seasail:

1) Is the era of big government NOT back?

2) Did Obama NOT run up taxpayer debt in the trillions?

3) Did Obama NOT expand the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy industry?

4) Did Obama NOT personally order NASA Chief Charles Bolden to change the primary mission of America's space agency to be "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world"?

5) Did Bolden NOT say "[Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

It's a free country - you can spread as many lies and innuendoes as you please. Our soldiers give their lives so that guys like you can spread slanders, distortions, and mud all over the place.

By the way, I'm glad that your taxes will go up next year - you deserve it.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

**************************************************************************************
Hey Maggots,

Don't even go there with the soldiers.
You're the liar & coward who is blind.
You would support Prez Obama 's policies that are destroying this country and support more taxes on successful patriotic Americans.........get out of your playpen, take a bath, get a real job
so you can cure your mental disorder called Liberalism.

Posted by: peterwoohoo | September 16, 2010 5:34 PM | Report abuse

"who could forge the Bolden claim that Nasa's main goal is Muslim betterment?"

Evidence: A killer PowerPoint presentation that only the government would or could produce that probably cost millions in wasted paper and printer ink in busy bureaucrat offices throughout the government-worshiping Obamaspehere.

Obama has rendered the private sector so impotent, any nimrod producing a PowerPoint like that would be fired.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

OK. The thread says the messenger doesn't have the correct motive for Obama's anti-business stance. Let's assume it's not his father. How does the man's brain work that produces an unending barrage of "business is evil" commentary? This, amidst a backdrop of tolerance of improper conduct from politicians, e.g., "let the voters decide!" What happened to "let the judge and jury decide?"

Posted by: SteveInCA1 | September 16, 2010 5:37 PM | Report abuse

I don't care where Obama was born, nor do I care about his religion. I find it weird, however, to talk about how he didn't know his father when he (Obama) wrote a book about him, entitled "Dreams From My Father." It's also funny to see and read all the liberal dopes who've been writing about the Bush family for about 10 years (nonsense about how W had to do this and that for old Poppy) suddenly take umbrage when someone examines the Obamination's writings. Grow up, you stupid children.

Posted by: wberline | September 16, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

wberline:

I don't care about his religion (or lack thereof). If Obama was born in Kenya, however, then he is not legally President of the United States.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Howard,

Thanks again for coming to our aid. Now that some media types are actually taking a closer more critical look at the POTUS it seems some of the skeletons are falling out of the closet.

REMEMBER - just make it about the author, demonize and belittle his reporting. It's worked for us so far - keep up the good work. Collectivism is where it's at!

Rham E.

Posted by: mrEd6 | September 16, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It is healthy to be able to voice and debate different views of our President Obama. There are unanswered questions that remain a thorn in who our President really is. The President could easily clear many of these matters up with some of the transparency he promised in his preelection speeches. That became Nixon’s problem, it went to the point where there was no more room to trust what he said. Clinton on the other hand lied and lied and he always got caught (at least that is the perception). But, Clinton is the greatest politician ever, and even those who hate him still have some respect. Clinton did seem to have the best interest of this Nation at heart and seemed to go in a direction that was good for America. This again may be the problem for Obama. The article wondered where his heart really is. Unfortunately, this is not a Whitewater or Watergate type event. This brings some serious questions into play about intent and purpose. I do strongly suggest and hope that Our President takes this as an opportunity to fully disclose and open up to the American people the answers that have been asked. Shuck and jive/spin and burn will not do the trick. The Americans are forgiving and not as dumb as some think. Obama needs to either totally ignore it (as is not being done) or solve the mysteries in a clear and honest way. Going on the attack will totally discredit him. Watch and see the Democrats and media go totally pit bull. Don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

Posted by: onlooker2 | September 16, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

jakeD2 wrote:

"1) Is the era of big government NOT back?

2) Did Obama NOT run up taxpayer debt in the trillions?

3) Did Obama NOT expand the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy industry?

4) Did Obama NOT personally order NASA Chief Charles Bolden to change the primary mission of America's space agency to be "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world"?

5) Did Bolden NOT say "[Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering"?"

Jake. thanks big fella now we have some things to "quibble" over!

1) The era of big government never left. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was the greatest expansion of government since the creation of the Pentagon, look it up.

2)I would have said that both Reps and Dems ran up the numbers, since both parties supported the legislation in question.

3) No Obama hasn't expanded control over home mortgages. Ben Bernanke and the Fed(a Bush appointee) did that. Obama has absolutely zero power over the home mortgages industry. it would be a good thing if he did however since that is the genesis of at least part of the financial crisis.

Health care, you are spot on! A big mistake in my opinion.

Investment banking? After the debacle when they contributed hugely to creating the financial crisis, most bankers were relieved by how ineffectual the final financial overhaul was. In fact Hank Paulson and Bernanke created the greatest overhaul of the industry when they allowed Goldman Sachs and other investment houses to be considered banks so that they could borrow billions from the Fed. No, no one who knew anything about finance would say that Obama has taken over that industry.

Autos? Well yes he prevented GM and Chrysler from going out of business. It seems like more of a rescue to me than a takeover, like saving a person from drowning is a takeover of their life. Soon GM will be a publicly traded company again having abrogated billions in debt and making tons of cash for it's owners. that doesn't sound like socialism or communism to me.

Energy, well no there wasn't any takeover at all, but the president maybe would have LIKED to take it over. I'll give you that. Cap and trade is a boondoggle however and is dead in the water.

4 & 5) Yes Bolden did say that in an interview with Al Jazeera! I think he was exaggerating because of his audience, but the quote is accurate. nobody could seriously believe that he really meant we were going to devote the space program to muslim outreach.

Well jake, how did I do?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza is just jealous he can't be president.

Posted by: pjdc1 | September 16, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz has increasingly become a reliable shill for the left. It's probably as simple as where he lives. He sees the far left in occupation of DC and thinks he can just be 'left' and it makes him a down the middle guy. And of course, that is the mindset of DC. It's why so many establishment types are being unceremoniously shown the door.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza is just jealous he can't be president.

Posted by: pjdc1 | September 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Looks like Obama's chickens have come home to roost

Posted by: tbirdszz | September 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

You didn't prove a single "lie".

pjdc1:

D'Souza IS President (of The King's College in NYC). But, if someone born in Kenya can be President of the United States, then why not someone born in India?

PALIN/D'SOUZA 2012!!!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Well, of COURSE the WH is going to blast Forbes because nothing pisses them off like the truth. There is nothing BUT truth in the article.

Hypocisy, thy name is Barry-O.

AND, btw, there seems to be a lot of confusion about black and white and grey here....life is in greys but right and wrong, good and evil are black and white.

Posted by: melissaTX | September 16, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Shame on that lying S.O.B. Gibbs.
How does he sleep at night?

Posted by: Fab4Bear | September 16, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

(Via MetaFilter) See what Steve Forbes and Photoshop make of President Obama. YIKES!
http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/08/fact-and-comment-opinions-steve-forbes.html

Posted by: CarolAnne1 | September 16, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

melissaTX:

I agree with your post (please note, however, that D'Souza has granted that there was one honest mistake in writing that Obama went to Pakistan before age 17, since Obama went to Pakistan while he was in college age 18-21). I think that he was much older when he finally traveled back to his father's grave in Africa:

"The climax of Obama's narrative is when he goes to Kenya and weeps at his father's grave. It is riveting: "When my tears were finally spent," he writes, "I felt a calmness wash over me. I felt the circle finally close. I realized that who I was, what I cared about, was no longer just a matter of intellect or obligation, no longer a construct of words. 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 piece 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."

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright."

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

As long as Obama is not forthcoming with documentation of his past, like unsealing his scholastic writings, then this stands as a reasonable analysis behind his behavior for instances such as returning the Churchill bust and showing childish disrespect for British royalty and their Prime Minister.

He also belonged to a 'Christian' church that was based on Black Liberation Theology. From whom were they advocating liberation if not the Anglosphere, the former British Empire.

Posted by: iopian | September 16, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The very notion of ascribing any emotion even remotely close to "rage" to "No Drama Obama" is so clearly wide of the mark as to be either sheer pathological projection or, what it of course is, another shrill dog whistle from the right.

Lots of words, lots of page, but Dinesh D'Souza is doing nothing more credible than racist name calling: "Angry Black Man."

This kind of behavior, this kind of politics, and Forbes' willingness to publish it is simply shameful.

Posted by: washpost29 | September 16, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

What are the lies in the article? It's an argument, an analysis, based on Obama's own words (books & speaches) and actions (political career and policies). Don't any of you readers understand the difference between fact reporting and nuanced analysis? It's a psychological theory - and frankly, it fits quite nicely. You cant defend Obama very easily against charges he is hostile towards business.

Posted by: lou12 | September 16, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

washpost29:

Jeffrey Dahmer allegedly killed and ate his victims in a very calm manner too.

lou12:

No one has been able to prove a single "lie" yet.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama is so foreign and anti american that he doesn't much care about anything but the ideology of socialism and wealth redistribution. His actions speaks millions of words. He has the mentality of any unnamed foreign enemy who would rather have been flying the airplanes that hit the towers and achieved the martyer level that Park 51 "Cordova House" will attain for the radical muslim's.
Americans have figured out the goals of this guy and will reject him profoundly beginning in November and the final stake will be driven through his political ideology in 2012.

Posted by: lhudson828 | September 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

iopian wrote:

"As long as Obama is not forthcoming with documentation of his past, like unsealing his scholastic writings, then this stands as a reasonable analysis behind his behavior for instances such as returning the Churchill bust and showing childish disrespect for British royalty and their Prime Minister"


Yes you are quite right. It was indeed shocking that a bust that had stood in place for 8 whole years was not deemed worthy of being there forever! It is even MORE shocking that the bust was replaced with one of Abraham Lincoln, an AMERICAN of all things! Doesn't the President know he is anti-American? Why couldn't somebody stop him for God's sake.

After all, the bust was only a companion piece to the one of Franklin Roosevelt that sits in the office of the British Prime Minister, isn't it? It should never be forgotten that Churchill saved the US during WWII, and contributed so much to our history. I believe that we should start an online petition drive to show support for the return of the bust of that noted greatest American politican of the 20th century, er British poltician Winston Churchill

Hey also the president shows too little respect for British royalty and too much for Saudi royalty. I guess we Americans can never get this royalty thing right, can we?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

This President has accomplished more for the working and middle class people in the US than any President before in the history of our country. The Republicans or tea parties stand for nothing. They want us to pay our bills with words, so they tell us to wrap ourselves up in the American flag; as if we Americans don't support our country.

The tea partiers and the Republicans whole belief is if they can't destory President Obama's ideology than they will destory his character.

Posted by: sun52shine | September 16, 2010 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I know that it pains Howard to consider the level of bile that shows up in the comments section of columns such as his, but I hope that he, or members of his staff (he'll get a kick out of that), are still reviewing.

Honestly folks, if President Obama were anti-colonialist, we would have been out of Iraq and Afghanistan by last year. (Newt, take your meds and please stay off the airways for everybody's sake).

For D'Souza to indulge in such an intellectually dishonest diatribe against our duly elected President (endorsed and published by Forbes) and then be quoted as saying, " he feels 'an eerie similarity to my own background'", underscores a pathological need to project upon Obama his own feelings of inadequacy and deep-seeded self-loathing.

Hey, Dinesh D'Souza, how's that for "psychological theory"?

Posted by: hardrain | September 16, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

sun52shine:

Feel free to point out a single "lie" in D'Souza's article now (unless that was just a drive-by post).

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:17 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of garbage trying to be presented as thoughtful writing!

I don't subscribe to Forbes, but if i did I would cancel my subscription.

Posted by: janye1 | September 16, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

hardrain:

Too bad you only included one fact for your theory (to see the MANY facts relied on read the actual article or, better yet, D'Souza's book when it comes out). As for the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq or Afghanistan, that's not to colonize!

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

First of all I would like to see D'Souza's birth certificate and/or papers, because that's no American. If he can't produce them immediately, then kick him the hell out back to wherever he came from.

Secondly, why would anyone take a pro-business Right Wing magazine like Forbes seriously anyway? This is a magazine that celebrates the fat-cat CEO screw-the-middle-class Republican fantasy. Next you're going to tell me the WSJ is useful. Please.

That said, the the WH is wrong to react. Just let the GOP hang itself on its own.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 16, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

If Obama and Gibbs says it is false then it must be true. You will know it is true when you hear Obama say "let me be perfectly clear..." Nothing this man says can be believed.
Besides, the author is not saying anything Obama didn't already say or insinuate in his books.

Posted by: archie521 | September 16, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

What a shame to read about this book. The vultures are out to make money on the backs of Obama by treading on the fearful fringes of ignorance.....fired by the insecurities of growth and change.....

Dinesh D'Souza has revealed his own skewed mentality that only one who suffers from
a lack of personal identity would create as a defense against his own fears about himself.

He has passed his own inner rage and impotence on to OBama..... how interesting for him to reveal his own projections in this book.....He has formulated a Gestalt which does not fit for anyone but himself.

OBama's power must really be a threat to him and many others as well.

To quote: "Nothing to fear, but fear itself."

How sad...
GMJ

Posted by: GrandmamaJanet | September 16, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse


The media did a lackluster job in uncovering Obama's past; i.e. college grades and writings. If they had wanted to dispell any theories about what Obama's core beliefs were (James Carville would call it 'his soul') then they should have shone a light into the life of young Barack.

So now someone on the opposite end of the political spectrum has an opening to speculate how his ideology solidified, when those who have covered for Obama did no looking in the first place.

They doth protest too much, methinks.

Posted by: leatherman1 | September 16, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

######################################

The media and wingnuts like you went through Obama's background with a fine tooth comb and found NOTHING! I repeat, NOTHING!

Gingrich is the self-admitted adulterer - why don't you spend some time looking there.

Posted by: maggots | September 16, 2010 2:38 PM

######################################

The media managed to get hold of the transcripts of G.W.Bush's grades from Yale. They got Gore's grades from Harvard. They also came up with Kerry's grades from Yale.

What were Obamas grades from Occidental College? What grades did he receive when he attended Columbia?

If the media can get the college transcripts for every presidential candidate since 2000 then why did they turn up empty on Obama? Was there NOTHING to find? Was his GPA NOTHING?

Posted by: leatherman1 | September 16, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

This Obama-water-carrying piece by Kurtz is laughable. He dismisses D'Souza's analysis by saying:

"The facts are also these: Obama Sr. abandoned the family when his son was 2, and the future president saw his father only one more time, during a visit in Hawaii when he was 10. Obama Sr. died in 1982."

To suggest that the president's worldview is not shaped by his Kenyan father is preposterous, when you consider that practically the whole basis of Obama's "qualifications" to run for president was the publication of his book "Dreams from My Father." Sorry, Howie, but you can't have it both ways. President Barry got elected based on a book about his father's dreams, so it's completely reasonable for D'Souza to extrapolate that Obama's worldview was shaped by his father's worldview. And then Kurtz throws in some irrelevant comment about D'Souza's critique by the Columbia Journalism Review to somehow invalidate D'Souza's brilliant analysis in a typical elitist Liberal desperation move: like we're all supposed to be awed into speechlessness by some purportedly erudite Ivy League publication. Give me a break.

Posted by: LoonsToTheLeftOfMe | September 16, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Why should I take anything a jihadi plant like D'Souza says seriously? Are you kidding me? I encourage the FBI to monitor D'Souza's bank accounts for odd jihad-related activity.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 16, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza: An immigrant so bent on appealing to his new masters to get ahead that he will try to out-xenophobe the hillbillies. You see similar things from time to time, Uncle Toms of various stripes.

Posted by: monroeeskew | September 16, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

It's funny how the Right Wing pretends to know Obama's mind. I guess its because they lack minds of their own. D'Souza is a terrorist, I know one when I see one, and he should be investigated immediately.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 16, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza: terrorist and Right Wing plant.

I think *his* mentality is shaped by the thousands of men who had their turn with his mother.

Posted by: TwoTermObama | September 16, 2010 6:32 PM | Report abuse

After reading D'Souza's article in Forbes, I can't help but think about my first journalism class...

"Never speak like an expert about a topic in which you are not one."

D'Souza, an English major, is certainly qualified to write. He is certainly NOT qualified to propose a psychological theory. That's for psychology majors.

Posted by: damascuspride04 | September 16, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

"1st) What's wrong with anti-colonialism? After all, wasn't our country founded by fighting against colonialism?

2nd) D'Souza dated Ann Coulter. 'nough said."


2? EEEYYYYYYYEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!

Posted by: MichaelOwen04 | September 16, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

GMJ:

Speaking of "ignorance" can you point to any alleged LIE in the D'Souza article?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

It is pure fun to see what passes for wisdom and rage at a well-researched and written paper by a man of color. The Washington Post is almost as elitist as the NYT, and the comments section reveal a serious lack of understanding what motivates Americans that live and work away from these centers of snobbery. I really think many of the liberals posting here will be dumbstruck on Tuesday night, November 2nd. They will be purely suicidal the 3rd. It's like the night John f-ing Kerry lost in 2004. The Move-On.Org crowd was so sure those exit polls had Kerry winning. By the time they finished dinner it was ejected onto the floor. Many didn't go to work. Many said they were moving to France. Well, hey, France (Islamiphobic) just banned the Burqua. LOL

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

What is amazing is how hyper sensitive this president is. Since he has been carried along all his life, he has never learned to deal with negative attention. Calm down, Obama. Most Americans don't like the job you are doing. It is natural for a journalist to try to figure out why you choose policies that are so destructive to our country. I guess being a responsible president cuts into golf and vacations way too much.

Posted by: betspotter | September 16, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Hasn't Kenya had enough trouble? And I thought it was Frederick Marshall [correct the name, readers!] who fed young Barry the anti-West anti-capitalist stuff, not the elusive Obama Sr.

Posted by: phvr38 | September 16, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

Excuse me,

But what is wrong with being anti-colonialist, weren't our founding fathers anti-colonialists as well?.

Posted by: eaglestrk01 | September 16, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

In a sane world, D'Souza and Gingrich would now be dismissed and no one would take them seriously again, for stating such nonsense. Someday most media outlets will wake up to this, and these guys can crawl back under the rock where they belong, with all of the liberal- hating, Obama-hating jackasses that keep commenting on these columns.

Posted by: rocks11 | September 16, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

For the last time:

"Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West [including America BTW] got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America."

That is not the same as "anti colonial" America in 1776.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Is there any thinking person who is not 'anti-colonial?' Is Newt pining for the good old days of colonialism? The far right loons must get a tingle down their leg at the mention of the words, 'White man's burden.'

I am sick of these far right extremists stinking up America with their filth, lies and ugly racism. They need to crawl back to their cave and let the rest of us move America forward, not backward.

Posted by: voultron2 | September 16, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law.

Posted by: monroeeskew | September 16, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

"Dinesh D'Souza has revealed his own skewed mentality that only one who suffers from
a lack of personal identity would create as a defense against his own fears about himself."

Grandmama, do you sell it by the pound or the ounce? I'd say that missive of yours was a panload, but your moniker appears to make you a woman. LOL

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

rocks11:

I don't "hate" Obama. Perhaps you can answer these questions:

1) Is the era of big government NOT back?

2) Did Obama NOT run up taxpayer debt in the trillions?

3) Did Obama NOT expand the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy industry?

4) Did Obama NOT personally order NASA Chief Charles Bolden to change the primary mission of America's space agency to be "improv[ing] relations with the Muslim world"?

5) Did Bolden NOT say "[Obama] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and math and engineering"?

I could keep going ...

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Columbia Journalism Review? Who cares what that Commie place has to say anymore. We are on to these Commie elites now and they just don't get it.

Posted by: curious3 | September 16, 2010 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Its very a smarmy article from a man that doesn't know him. I knew Barry Obama in college. I lived two doors down from him(Occidental College)for a year and he never was an anti-colonialist or "socialist". Barry Obama grew up learning about secular progressive principals from professors like Roger Boesche whom he took two classes from in those early college days. Professor Boesche was and is still a favorite of students. Read his book:Tocqueville's Road Map by Roger Boesche, Professor of Politics.
That will probably be a better gage of how a young Barry Obama's mind became President Barrack Obama and how Tocqueville's observations are more in line with his thinking now than the meandering musings of Mr D'Souza alleging a non existent ant-colonial hatred read really as a "anti-capitalist" view. Progressive capitalism is still a belief in controlled free enterprise not laissez-faire capitalism of the last 10 years. As Dr Phil says, "And how's that working for you?"

Posted by: franciscomedina1 | September 16, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, Americans are finally waking up that Obama pulled a bait and switch on them and they will show their fear at the ballot box in Nov. More and more articles are being written about Obama and how psychologically flawed he really is. As a health care professional I have worked with people in therapy with similar behavior as Obama. He has a narcissistic personality disorder, attachment disorder, and sociopathic behavior. Add to this his radical ideology....He is a fraud.

Posted by: bethmack | September 16, 2010 6:45 PM | Report abuse

"What is amazing is how hyper sensitive this president is. Since he has been carried along all his life, he has never learned to deal with negative attention."

That's why he is called, President ME.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Those that compare Obama's anti-colonialism to pur Founding Fathers version are way off base. Our Founding Fathers were anti colonial because they were suffering under colonial rule. The US has promoted freedom not colonialism thoughout the world. In Iraq, the liberals said it was for the oil. Tell me what US oil companies have profited from the Iraq War? None. The Chinese have gotten contracts in Iraq and in Afghanistan for metals. Bush wanted Iraq our of the picture from being a tool of terrorists and the evidence supported it.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Seriously, if the Columbia Journalism Review is so critical then it must be true. For Kurtz to wave around anything from Columbia as factual unbiased bona fides is a joke.

I think D'Souza might be onto something. The ivory tower elite and and their media lap dogs are offended because he is not playing by the Journolist rulebook.

Remember-in-November!

Posted by: RealityCheck33 | September 16, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

The racist loon, D'Souza claims he worked in the Reagan White House.

That would put him around 18 years old +/- when he claims he was Ronnie's right hand man. Secretary of State? Naw. Special advisor to the president? Don't think so.
Lying sack of stuff? Most likely.

Posted by: voultron2 | September 16, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Whatever happened to freedom of the press and that Americans can make their own decisions about what is written - form their own opinions....but of course Marxists don't allow that. Gibb's and the WH behavior only confirms that what is written in the Forbes article is true!!!

Posted by: bethmack | September 16, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

I love how everyone stands up for Obama as if he is the kid in the playground getting picked on. He's the President for god's sake and is going to be chastised. If he can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Considering that he is Kenyan though, I am a little surprised heat is a problem for him. I hear it's hot over there.

Posted by: Jsuf | September 16, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

After reading the article "How He Thinks," it is clear that anti-colonialism means anti-emperioralism in its context.

Thus, America is an emperioralist nation in the eyes of Obama Sr. and Obama Jr.

Therefore, redistributing the wealth of the emperiorlist Americans is the main goal of Obama's agenda.

Remember what Obama said to Joe The Plumber, "we have to spread the wealth around."

Posted by: Chuck8764 | September 16, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Oblahblah is such an idiot.

I hope the people who drank his kool-aid and bought his hopey-changey inane, vacuous platitudes have wised up and realized they elected a socialist idiot.

His only talent is his polished reading of other people's writings on a teleprompter.

Posted by: Juanito2 | September 16, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

franciscomedina1:

Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors didn't think anything was wrong either ; )

voultron2:

Mr. D'Souza worked in the White House as "" in 1988 (when he was 27 years old). Who's LYING again?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 6:59 PM | Report abuse

The only thing alleged President Obama and I share is our American citizenship ... maybe.

The majority of what we know about Barack Obama comes from two books written by Barack Obama ... maybe.

Dinesh D'Souza's guess about where Obama gets his worldview is as good as any.

Posted by: JJinCO | September 16, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

There was some reason dear leader Obama couldn't wait to send the bust of Winston Churchill back to then-prime minister Brown.

I have not read the "Forbes" article in question, so I do not know if the author touched upon this: Winston Churchill's second stint as British Prime Minister ran from 1951--1955. This covered roughly the first half of the Mau-Mau uprising in British East Africa (now Kenya). It is reported that Obama's father was placed in prison and "suffered" under British rule there.

And under Obama, the Winston Churchill bust went back across the Atlantic as fast as an airplane could take it.

No connection? One has to wonder.

And the fact that the "Washington Post" article was so negative on the "Forbes" article, along with the scathng comments quoted from the "Columbia Journalism Review," both bastions of less-than-critical thought and of political correctness, makes one wonder if the liberal establishment is not in full cry to try and drown out an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: theobservor | September 16, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

There was some reason dear leader Obama couldn't wait to send the bust of Winston Churchill back to then-prime minister Brown.

I have not read the "Forbes" article in question, so I do not know if the author touched upon this: Winston Churchill's second stint as British Prime Minister ran from 1951--1955. This covered roughly the first half of the Mau-Mau uprising in British East Africa (now Kenya). It is reported that Obama's father was placed in prison and "suffered" under British rule there.

And under Obama, the Winston Churchill bust went back across the Atlantic as fast as an airplane could take it.

No connection? One has to wonder.

And the fact that the "Washington Post" article was so negative on the "Forbes" article, along with the scathng comments quoted from the "Columbia Journalism Review," both bastions of less-than-critical thought and of political correctness, makes one wonder if the liberal establishment is not in full cry to try and drown out an inconvenient truth.

Posted by: theobservor | September 16, 2010 7:07 PM | Report abuse

For all the libs out there arguing that Obama isn't a socialist: why does he have so many radicals and fellow travelers like Van Jones and Valerie Jarret working for him? I'll grant that a few are found out and leave or are fired. But there are Marxists in this administration than a movie with Groucho, Harpo, and Zeppo.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

For all the libs out there arguing that Obama isn't a socialist: why does he have so many radicals and fellow travelers like Van Jones and Valerie Jarret working for him? I'll grant that a few are found out and leave or are fired. But there are more Marxists in this administration than a movie with Groucho, Harpo, and Zeppo.

Posted by: wwyni | September 16, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I realize, of course, that I'm wasting pixels by pointing out that the Bust of Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein (a piece worth many thousands) which the President 'insulted Britain' by returning was, actually, a loan from the British government to adorn the office while George W. Bush was President. When Bush was out of office, we were obligated to return it to Britain.

That's what a loan is...you borrow something, then you give it back. The British offered to let us hang on to it, but White House curator sent it back on schedule.

The return of Churchill's bust has absolutely nothing whatever to do with President's father or his Kenyan heritage. Please, find something more substantial than repeating this nonsense.

Posted by: WonderfulWorld | September 16, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza's article was quite interesting and fair IMO. It goes a long way in explaining the seemingly irrational actions of President Obama. I highly recommend those that have not read it to do so. The fact that it has generated such a knee jerk response from the WH should tell you quite a bit.

Obama is a statist at heart. He doesn't like America's position in the world because he believes that position was reached by exploiting Third World Nations. He facilitates crony capitialism in order make amends. Were he a European does anyone doubt he would be a member of the Social Democrats i.e Socialists? Unfortunately for him he knows that won't fly in America. So he chooses an alternate route. Directing the actions of capitalist business through the power of government in order to create "fairness" in light of America's misdeeds.

I'm suprised that so many on the Left reject Obama's viewpoint or that Dinesh D'Souza would point them out. Please just be honest. Come out and say that America is unjust and immoral. That we are not special because of a Constitution that provides for the maximum potential of each individual but rather because we are a violent, ignorant, exploitative people that murder lesser developed peoples and nations. Or perhaps you have some other explanation for Obama's actions?

Posted by: aMonsterisanidiot | September 16, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Obama isn't anti-colonial...he's just a communist....through and through....with just a touch of islam.

Posted by: HabanaJoe | September 16, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

voultron2:

I meant to include the words "policy analyis" in the quotation marks. You are probably just a drive-by poster too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza's article was quite interesting and fair IMO. It goes a long way in explaining the seemingly irrational actions of President Obama. I highly recommend those that have not read it to do so. The fact that it has generated such a knee jerk response from the WH should tell you quite a bit.

Obama is a statist at heart. He doesn't like America's position in the world because he believes that position was reached by exploiting Third World Nations. He facilitates crony capitialism in order make amends. Were he a European does anyone doubt he would be a member of the Social Democrats i.e Socialists? Unfortunately for him he knows that won't fly in America. So he chooses an alternate route. Directing the actions of capitalist business through the power of government in order to create "fairness" in light of America's misdeeds.

I'm suprised that so many on the Left reject Obama's viewpoint or that Dinesh D'Souza would point them out. Please just be honest. Come out and say that America is unjust and immoral. That we are not special because of a Constitution that provides for the maximum potential of each individual but rather because we are a violent, ignorant, exploitative people that murder lesser developed peoples and nations. Or perhaps you have some other explanation for Obama's actions?

Posted by: aMonsterisanidiot | September 16, 2010 7:12 PM | Report abuse

Me thinks the White House doth protest too much. I read the D'Souza article and believe the theory has much merit. Recall, one of the first things Obama did upon entering the White House was return the bust of Winston Churchill, whom many in the Third World view as the epitome of Colonialism. Yes, I think we may be on to something.

Posted by: rexlex1 | September 16, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

http://blogs.forbes.com/dineshdsouza/2010/09/16/the-obamorons-strike-back/

During the 2008 election campaign I coined the phrase “Obamorons” to describe the uncritical cheerleaders of Obama–the people who would leap to his defense even if he drove a truck over his aged grandmother. Love-stricken TV host Chris Matthews comes to mind, complete with thrills running up his leg, as does English major Maureen Dowd, lifestyle columnist for the New York Times. The Times itself is a leading Obamoron outlet.

Well, the Obamorons are now in a mad fury, and this time the culprit is my cover story in the September 27 issue of Forbes. The story is adapted from my new book The Roots of Obama’s Rage. Let me just say that if the Forbes article so upset these guys, wait until the book comes out. It may prove extremely difficult for the Obamorons to digest; perhaps it will have to be administered as a suppository.

Leading the Obamoron charge this time was White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs was reacting to Newt Gingrich’s comment that my article offered the most “stunningly insightful” analysis of Obama that he had read in six years. Gingrich’s reference to “Kenyan anti-colonialism” raised Gibbs’ ire. Gibbs said he had “no idea” what Gingrich was talking about. He should have stopped there: if you have no idea what someone is talking about, it’s a good idea to shut up. But Gibbs went on to link Gingrich and me with the birther thesis: the charge that Obama was not born in the United States.

This is a complete distortion of my argument. Anyone who read the Forbes article could see that it had nothing to do with the birther allegation. In The Roots of Obama’s Rage I explicitly say that Obama was born in Hawaii, as evidenced by the fact that two local newspapers noted his birth in August 1961. Clearly Gibbs had not read the article he was commenting on. Again, the man should have stayed quiet–unless, of course, he was told to strike back by the subject of the article.

Gibbs fired a second salvo a few days later, asking, “Why didn’t Forbes hire a fact checker…did they simply not care about the facts?” Gibbs offered no facts of his own, however. He merely linked to two web posts–one in the Columbia Journalism Review, one on “The Fourth Branch”–that disputed the article. The Columbia Journalism Review piece was high on invective (“the worst kind of smear journalism–a singularly disgusting work,” blah blah blah) but simply quoted large segments of the article as if they were self-evidently appalling–which of course they are to all confirmed Obamorons, who are only satisfied with hosannas and genuflections before the Anoined One.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 7:21 PM | Report abuse

As the US is an anti colonialist nation I would have to say that Obama's adoption of the cause is a GOOD THING. I guess the right -- which babbles much about the Constitution -- should revisit the actions of those that gave us that remarkable gift -- our FOUNDING FATHERS - ANTI COLONIALISTs.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 16, 2010 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Just one more little aside for my Leftist friends.

Do any of you doubt that Rev Wright and Bill Ayers hold the views that Dinesh D'Souza ascribes to President Obama? If you don't doubt it why do you have such a hard time thinking that Obama himself holds those same views?

Posted by: aMonsterisanidiot | September 16, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I cannot get over how stupid the following people are. They are in fact too stupid to actually exist. How do they get by day to day? It boggles the mind.
I'm talking about you,
Juanito2
Chuck8764
RealityCheck33
jschmidt2
wwyni
bethmack
curious3
JakeD2
betspotter
LoonsToTheLeftOfMe
leatherman1
archie52

And those are just an example of the less than intellectually incurious commenting on this article. Seriously, it's okay to be stupid, but you don't have to share it with the entire world.

I know that we have political differences, but if we just kept it to political discourse and not make it personal, it wouldn't show your ignorance so much. Oh wait, I take that back. But, it's still probably just better to keep your comments limited to politics. Then you only look like you're misinformed instead of mildly retarded.

Hey MikeS651, "wear" is spelled W-E-A-R, not W-H-E-R-E. If the stupid shoe fits, wear it. Just sayin...

LOL

Posted by: denise4925 | September 16, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

(cont.)

“The Fourth Branch” accused me of raising the “prism of race,” in short, of playing the race card. Again, this is totally bogus. I explicitly say in my article that Obama is not motivated by race–that race has nothing to do with this. In the book I develop this much further, showing that a big reason for our confusion about Obama is that we are always trying to to fit him into American history. In the process we ignore Obama’s own history. I realize that anti-colonialism is an unfamiliar notion to many Americans, but it is a very familiar concept in Kenya, where Obama’s father was born, and also in India, where I was born. This is about Third World anti-colonialism; it is not about race.

For me the most unkindest cut of all was when Maureen Dowd in yesterday’s New York Times accused Gingrich and me of low intellectual standards. “This is what passes for intellectualism on the right?” Here is Maureen Dowd’s idea of intellectualism: to dub me “Ann Coulter in pants.” But what do you expect from a Catholic University English major who specializes in little sarcasms devoid of mental content? I feel silly spelling out my credentials, but I did graduate Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth, I did serve as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House, I was the Olin Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, I also was the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and I am currently the president of the King’s College in New York City. (Check it out: www.tkc.edu) So compared to Dowd, I am a veritable Einstein!

...

Yesterday I did Glenn Beck’s radio show for an hour, and the book–which will be out in a couple of weeks–rocketed to the top 5 on the amazon bestseller list. There is a lot more to come. So why did the article previewing the book so enrage the White House and the Obamorons? Because it provides a belated but desperately-needed explanatory framework for Obama. Finally we have a key that actually opens the lock. No, Obama is not a Muslim. No, Obama is not a socialist. The truth is far worse.

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza's commentary has to be the biggest piece of crap I've read in years - and I say that as an Indo-American woman(ie, a woman whose parents came from India). For a man who spent the nearly the first two decades of his life growing up in a foreign country, he has some nerve sitting around accusing Obama of being "anti-business" based on Obama's supposed Kenyan roots.

The author is a man who has spent the better part of his adult life trying to pretend that he ISN'T some hapless brown immigrant from a third world nation - but guess what? Marrying a white woman, gaining US citizenship, and producing half-white children while building a career writing extreme right-wing rants doesn't accomplish that. You're still a product of the third world, pal - even more so than President Obama is.

And I reference President Obama's "supposed" Kenyan roots, because Obama was abandoned by the African father who supposedly influenced his "anti-colonial" and "anti-business" thinking. The president was completely influenced by his WHITE mother and WHITE grandparents while growing up; Kenya played no part at all. As several of my black friends like to point out, President Obama is basically a white man in a black man's body. To attempt to link President Obama's Kenyan heritage to any business attitudes he may have, whether 'anti-business' or not, is a load of crap.

And if Dinesh needs reinforcement on that question, I suggest he take a look at none other than his Indian countrymen - the men in Bangalore who founded India's tech industry and turned it into one of the world's modern business miracles - despite being non-Christian, polygamist, anti-colonial, and BROWN. I think it's time for Dinesh to take a trip back home to his motherland - the land of his birth - so he can talk to some of his "anti-colonial" countrymen and learn about what it really means to be a person of color in the post-colonial world we live in today.

Posted by: Sambo1 | September 16, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

denise4925:

Care to quote something I posted that you think is "stupid"?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 7:30 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza writes as a right wing hit man for a man that inherited his wealth and failed to win the presidency.

D'Souza uses disingenuous phrases to make incredibly vicious and unsupported attacks. Obama spent how much time with his father? A 2 year old has no time and little memory of the first two years. A small amount of time when he was ten -- and this time so affected Obama that he adopted a Kenyan anti colonialist view point? Someone should ask D'Souza what he thinks of the Brits and how he developed his world view.

Steve Forbes and D'Souza are what they are - trash. Rich trash but trash nontheless.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 16, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

The anger and personal animosity displayed by so many commentators towards the President of these U.S. is simply astounding. I'm reminded of how quickly defendants calm down in a courtroom setting. Most of the respondents need a lecture from their mother about what constitutes acceptable behavior in a public forum. Aside from that, one question begs for an answer. How many of the respondents have actually read the article in Forbes and sought some background on the author's credentials? That should be a minimum requirement before jumping into the fray. May the victors in the mid-term elections be similarly mindful about their actions and dedicated to the best interests of this country. The tone of the high-minded rhetoric that is on display here is not a good omen for that outcome.

Posted by: maxmaw | September 16, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza has obviously lost his mind. A child abandoned by a father at 2 and then saw him once more in his life time somehow imbued the child with anticolonial views is a moronic thought. Besides what anticolonial, a lot of countries including US fought off colonialism. This concoction of disjointed ideas and with utter disregard to the time line, makes this piece of writing garbage and Dinesh D'Souza a fake. There is not one iota of truth or logic in this writing.

Posted by: amathur16 | September 16, 2010 7:36 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how stupid blogger Denise4925 is. She takes tried and true liberal tact of calling everyone stupid instead of trying to support their argument. Frankly Denise- I really don't care for your opinion. You want to produce some facts of your own, go ahead. But you do your cause no favor by calling people stupid.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 7:40 PM | Report abuse

maxmaw:

I read the article (and I already knew his credentials). Any other questions?

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 16, 2010 7:45 PM | Report abuse

max- I might normally agree with you but this President has done an aweful job for our country. He was sold by the media as a moderate but he has taken a leftward march and is not stopping. He's let Pelosi and Reid run the country into the ground since they took over 2007. He has shown no leadership in the world, apologizing for the US when no apologies were needed. He has turned on our allies and showed our enemies he is weak. He has no leadership experience or epxerience governing anything. He is a gifted speaker- for a college graduation but as leader of the country he is in way of his head. He really has disgraced the office of the President.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 7:46 PM | Report abuse


Mankind benefits in understanding and knowledge from the preservation of native cultures. But I don't think any ethical social scientist would object if we voted this one out of Washington.

Posted by: versionthirteen | September 16, 2010 7:47 PM | Report abuse

Don't we all object to colonialism? Man, I have issues with Obama but not because he's an anti-colonialist. Aren't we all? Wow! Our politics has gone nuts.

Posted by: jwappe | September 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

max- I might normally agree with you but this President has done an aweful job for our country. He was sold by the media as a moderate but he has taken a leftward march and is not stopping. He's let Pelosi and Reid run the country into the ground since they took over 2007. He has shown no leadership in the world, apologizing for the US when no apologies were needed. He has turned on our allies and showed our enemies he is weak. He has no leadership experience or epxerience governing anything. He is a gifted speaker- for a college graduation but as leader of the country he is in way of his head. He really has disgraced the office of the President.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Don't we all object to colonialism? Man, I have issues with Obama but not because he's an anti-colonialist. Aren't we all? Wow! Our politics has gone nuts.

Posted by: jwappe | September 16, 2010 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Gibbs doesn't understand that his and the lamestream media's credibility is gone. Its amazing that Gibbs reflexively and repeatedly makes statements to indicat the story is rife with factual inaccuracies; yet he cannot offer one decent example. Gibbs, it seems, is (as usual) the one with the 'facts' problem.

Sorry Howie, but just because Americans typically have more important things to do, does not mean the Left's Fact Twisting ways will continue to work. The American public is catching on and soon the lamestream media will be completely dead.

T I M E T O G E T A R E A L J O B ! ! !

While I agree that the D'Souza article is long on theory and short on facts (which I admittedly do not like), it is particularly delicious for the left to 'go nuts' on such an article. There were ton's of such articles written on George W. Bush in the New York Slimes Magazine, etc ....

TO ME IT IS OBVIOUS FORBES AND D'SOUZA ARE GIVING THE LEFT ITS OWN MEDICINE.

Folks on the right are typically focused on producing goods and services their fellow citizens need and desire. It is hard work to be productive. Meanwhile, the LEFTIES do not have these same concerns, lazily leach off the system (e.g., college professors, media workers, etc...) and have time to scheme and connive. And for a moment Steve Forbes simple dishes back to the left the same type of stuff they see as their own specialty .... and they erupt .... SUCH SIMPLETONS !!!!! HA HA HA HA !!!!!

Posted by: PlainSense | September 16, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Apparently the younger monkey doesn't stray far from the father monkey's tree.

Posted by: JoeDrager | September 16, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Screw Gibbs. I think he's a commie pinko pansy!

Posted by: ObamasPastor-GodDamnAmerica | September 16, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I would think an Indian would embrace anti-colonialism. I haven't really heard colonialism defended since Winston Churchill said he refused to preside over the disintegration of "The Empah." You know, the one where the sun never used to set. The one that used to include Kenya. But all of that is ridiculously irrelevant to anything to do with Obama.

Posted by: tughillb | September 16, 2010 7:58 PM | Report abuse

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

Then let them call upon Columbia University to take the lock off of student Obama's records.

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | September 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

It would be hard to imagine a more vile, lying creature than Dinesh D'Souza- sadly most of mainstream America has no idea who he is. I'll stop typing now, as I doubt my ability to curtail the descriptive blue language that is sure to follow.

Posted by: madamezora | September 16, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Does this have anything to do with the Forbes article?

The neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) released a report in September of 2000 called Rebuilding America’s Defenses in which they advocated for a massive expansion of America’s empire and “full spectrum dominance” as well as the necessity to undertake a “Revolution in military affairs,” and undertake multiple simultaneous wars in different regions of the world. Several members of the think tank and authors of the report would go on to enter key policy positions within the Bush administration several months later (including, but not limited to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Zalmay Khalilzad). While acknowledging the massive undertaking this “project” would be, the report stated:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”[8]
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20975

Posted by: RockyRacoon1 | September 16, 2010 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Now these "patriots" are bashing the president for being "anti-colonialist"? The fools don't even know that our country was FOUNDED by "anti-colonialist" Founding Fathers? This pretty much sums up their fascist views. They would be tories supporting the crown and the wealthy if this were 1776.

How stupid are Gingrich, D'Souza and their tea-party dressup idiots? The bottom keeps dropping further for them.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 16, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

obama hates america

obama hate free enterprise

obama's father wrote articles of this hatred

the nut never falls too far from the tree

obama regime--failed socialism

Posted by: ProCounsel | September 16, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The White House probably reacted so virulently to the D'Souza article because it probably hit a raw nerve.

I would bet the truth is somewhere in the middle. If Obama did have an "anti-colonialist" view, I'm sure he wouldn't admit it to the American public. I mean, that would be no way to get elected as U.S. president, right?

Certainly Obama could claim an identity as an "average American citizen." That isn't too hard even for a lot of people with foreign roots. But it's also clear that he likely wouldn't closely identify with average American citizens, having spent a good part of his upbringing abroad.

Obama, the man in the middle. That's the middle of the world, not middle America, which a lot of leftist liberals openly disdain.

Posted by: ttj1 | September 16, 2010 8:25 PM | Report abuse

profiling obama’s future actions--the islamic factor

obama spent his crucial early formative years in moslem indonesia. obama himself has spoken of the moslem call to prayers broadcast 5 times every day.

Zogby conducted a poll of moslem perception of america in 2002 in, and while half of most moslem countries had a favorable view of america, indonesia, along with iran, did not. this is the hate america environment in which obama was immersed during his impressionable young years. remember moses was only raised by his jewish mother until he was weaned, and then in pharaohs house until manhood–yet moses was always jewish-- not egyptian. so it is with obama’s islamic roots.

obama’s exposure to anti american sentiment was voluntarily reinforced by his conscious selection of rev. jeremiah’s church for over 20 years, where anti-american venom was spewed every sunday.

consistent with this islamic worldview, obama selected a wife who famously said during the campaign that this was the first time she was ever proud to be an american.

another factor which will dictate obama’s future actions and is compelled by obama’s islamic worldview, is the fundamentally anti-democratic basis of islam. islamic countries tend to be monarchies or democracies in form only. hence, obama will have and act upon a basic visceral anti democracy worldview, summarized by “one person, one vote, one time”.

interestingly, moslems under islamic regimes, immediately seek to emigrate and indeed 85% of all refugees are moslem. why, if islamic rule is so great??

finally, moslems are permitted and indeed encourages to conceal their religious identity to avoid persecution.

how will this effect obama’s future actions?

1. obama will viscerally oppose israel and particularly jerusalem, as moslems prayed to jerusalem before mecca was selected. israel should NOT take any comfort from jewish advisors to obama–obama will oppose israel.

2. obama is at best indifferent to democracy, and-unbelievably- we have a president who is inherently hostile to the united states.

3. obama will become increasingly intolerant of dissent, free speech, free enterprise–much less opposition, consistent with islamic anti democratic and socialistic norms.

Posted by: ProCounsel | September 16, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Those that compare Obama's anti-colonialism to pur Founding Fathers version are way off base. Our Founding Fathers were anti colonial because they were suffering under colonial rule. The US has promoted freedom not colonialism thoughout the world. In Iraq, the liberals said it was for the oil. Tell me what US oil companies have profited from the Iraq War? None. The Chinese have gotten contracts in Iraq and in Afghanistan for metals. Bush wanted Iraq our of the picture from being a tool of terrorists and the evidence supported it.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Those that compare Obama's anti-colonialism to pur Founding Fathers version are way off base. Our Founding Fathers were anti colonial because they were suffering under colonial rule. The US has promoted freedom not colonialism thoughout the world. In Iraq, the liberals said it was for the oil. Tell me what US oil companies have profited from the Iraq War? None. The Chinese have gotten contracts in Iraq and in Afghanistan for metals. Bush wanted Iraq our of the picture from being a tool of terrorists and the evidence supported it.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 8:32 PM | Report abuse

As Americans who lived under British Colonialism, we all ought to be ANTI colonial in our thinking. Maybe the Republicans don't feel that way. They would have liked Cuba staying under the dictator, Batista rule too. Conservatives are the ones who are terribly inconsistent in terms of defending our core values as Americans. Disgusting.

Posted by: kerryberger | September 16, 2010 8:37 PM | Report abuse

So let me get this straight, Gibbs and Kurtz contend that the Forbes piece was "fact-twisting" and "lacking in truth and fact" and "some facts are very much in contention". Fine. So what were these numerous factual errors? Well, unless opinion now passes as fact, the only incorrect fact cited was that Obama was older than 17 when he went to Pakistan. Wow. Really. That's it? Either Gibbs and Kurtz did a horrendous job making their case or this is simply a poor attempt at attacking the credibility of the messenger in hopes of deflecting the credibility of the message.

As for the Kurtz contention that Barack “never really knew” his father and was “critical” of him, it left me wondering then how Barack knew of his father’s dreams, why he made them his own, and why he used them to introduce himself to the world.

Posted by: MrRightAgain | September 16, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

the forbes article explains obama's pathological hatred of america:

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."

source:http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_3.html

obama-- he hates

free enterprise

free speech

and freedom

Posted by: ProCounsel | September 16, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Anti-colonial could also be taken to mean that Obama is anti-caucasian. Whatever he is he certainly is not good for the country. People are finally starting to realize that we are being run over the financial cliff. We need new blood in both political parties who will follow the Constitution and abandon the progressives. Men and women with some common sense.

Posted by: RangerOn | September 16, 2010 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Now these "patriots" are bashing the president for being "anti-colonialist"? The fools don't even know that our country was FOUNDED by "anti-colonialist" Founding Fathers? This pretty much sums up their fascist views. They would be tories supporting the crown and the wealthy if this were 1776.

How stupid are Gingrich, D'Souza and their tea-party dressup idiots? The bottom keeps dropping further for them.

-------------------------------------

Certainly other fools are too dim to understand or too disingenuous to admit that the "colonialist" implied in the expression "anti-colonialist" is the United States of America.

These fools need to understand that the Tea Party supporters consider the U.S. as their home country and not just some abstract concept used to further the international political interests of a few liberal elitists.

The real fascists are those who would attempt to summarily dismiss Tea Party views without regard and deny the Tea Party members their right to political expression.

Let's also recall, the Nazis were not "neo-conservatives," but "National Socialists."

Posted by: ttj1 | September 16, 2010 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Steve Forbes should really be ashamed of this crap. I can't believe that he continues to sully his family's name. Forbes magazine has entered the fringe 'media' genre.

Posted by: 12345leavemealone | September 16, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza profoundly notes in the Forbes article:

"Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son.

The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father's dream.

The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done.

America today is governed by a ghost."

or perhaps more precisely

a

demon

Posted by: ProCounsel | September 16, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

D'Souuza's cogent analysis of warped obama in the Forbes article

will raise

incalculable funds to
opose the Dems

on Nov 2 2010

just watch

americans knew instinctively

obama is warped

this article explains

why

Posted by: ProCounsel | September 16, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

As someone who campaigned for Obama...and was thrown under the bus by him... I think this is about the kindest thing that can be said about him. President Obama is simply the worst, the most dangerous, lunatic to ever occupy the White House. He and his job outsourcing, free trade, Wall Street wh*res advisors, are a calamity. Impeach him!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | September 16, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Okay, so he's not an anticolonialist. He's just a Muslim socialist. Let's stick to facts.

Posted by: bryan37 | September 16, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

http://www.vdare.com/half-blood_prince/

Steve Sailer has already written the definitive Obamaology. D'Souza is about 22 months late!

Posted by: greg3 | September 16, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

mrrightagain wrote:

"So let me get this straight, Gibbs and Kurtz contend that the Forbes piece was "fact-twisting" and "lacking in truth and fact" and "some facts are very much in contention". Fine. So what were these numerous factual errors? Well, unless opinion now passes as fact, the only incorrect fact cited was that Obama was older than 17 when he went to Pakistan. Wow. Really. That's it? Either Gibbs and Kurtz did a horrendous job making their case or this is simply a poor attempt at attacking the credibility of the messenger in hopes of deflecting the credibility of the message."

I have corrected some of the errors in my above posts based on my personal knowledge. Here is a link to media matters (which you won't believe) that illustrates the others:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201009160031

Sorry to inconvenience you with the facts.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a great president. He thinks long term. Most Americans, specially the Republican right wing and tea baggers don't understand that. The are accustomed to gun-toting heroes that can solve a problem like in an hour long TV program with 20 minutes reserved for adds. That is not how to clean up the mess the Republicans left us
Henk Semper Fi

Posted by: marketeck | September 16, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

procounsel:

These are just abbreviations of your usual rants old friend. In a hurry today?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 9:17 PM | Report abuse

d"souza is and always has been an indian Uncle Tom who would not only sell his grandmother for a pat on the head by the right wing, but would send her COD.

Posted by: LABC | September 16, 2010 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Not surprising that Jake the D has practically made sweet love to the article - something has to justify your racist b.s., right?

Posted by: LABC | September 16, 2010 9:21 PM | Report abuse

"Is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa."

Two amazing things about this:

1. D'Souza, unlike Obama, really did spend his first 17 years outside the US. He doesn't mention the fact in his article. Does that make his loyalty suspect? Only Republicans can reach such heights of hypocrisy, this Nirvana of non-self-awareness.

2. "...multiple subsequent journeys to Africa." Only the stupidity-worshipping GOP would attack a man for travelling. Why not accuse him of reading too many books?

Palin thinks Africa is a country so she's a Real American.
Obama traveled to Africa so he's foreign and dangerous.

So a real American is a stupid person who never leaves home?

Posted by: JenDray | September 16, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

The article in Forbes describes Obama to a T. The Colombia Journalism review has a conflist of interest and is reliable to give an unvarnished opinion. The ruling class doesn'y get to tell us who Obama really is, we have seen it for ourselves.

Posted by: kalamere | September 16, 2010 9:27 PM | Report abuse

I have a "psychological theory" that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Jim Demint are all psychotic serial killers just waiting to go off. Surely that would an appropriate "analysis piece" for a major publication to tout on their cover?

Of course, I have exactly as much evidence for my theory's validity that D'Souza has for his "theory" that Obama received a telepathic indocrination from an absent father and is living in a "Kenyan anti-colonialist" trance that explains his efforts to get more Americans on health insurance.

Again, Forbes used to be a respected publication. They have flushed that all down the drain with this choice they have made.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 16, 2010 9:28 PM | Report abuse

jsscmidt wrote:

"Those that compare Obama's anti-colonialism to pur Founding Fathers version are way off base. Our Founding Fathers were anti colonial because they were suffering under colonial rule. The US has promoted freedom not colonialism thoughout the world. In Iraq, the liberals said it was for the oil. Tell me what US oil companies have profited from the Iraq War? None. The Chinese have gotten contracts in Iraq and in Afghanistan for metals. Bush wanted Iraq our of the picture from being a tool of terrorists and the evidence supported it."

I think your statement that "Our Founding Fathers were anti-colonial because they were suffering under colonial rule", pretty much says it all, but probably not the way that you think.

Actually, there were at one time a lot of dead Filipinos because the US decided it wanted to be a colonial power. There was a raging internal debate in the country over this around the time of the Spanish-American War. The anti-colonial forces won out in Cuba. The pro-colonial forces won out in the Phillipines, where we attempted to Christianize our little brown brothers as the saying went. You'll have to read that one yourself.

As to just a partial list of American companies that made big money in Iraq:

Haliburton,
Kellogg, Brown and Root
Blackwater,
Armor Group,
Global Risk Strategies,
AECOM
Bechtel
Computer Sciences Corp.
Fluor,
Lucent

I could literally fill up this page with the names of Aermican companies that have made a lot of money in Iraq.

As to your final assertion, there were no terrorists operating out of Iraq. Afghanistan yes, Iraq no. Saddam didn't believe in having any strange gods before him.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 9:40 PM | Report abuse


D'Souza is the remnant of the Portugese thought in their Indian colony.
Gingrich and whathisname fit each other .

Posted by: wrock76taolcom | September 16, 2010 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one to see something ironic about D'Souza talking about Obama's "foreign" roots. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"D'Souza was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, to parents from the state of Goa in Western India. He arrived in the United States in 1978"

So, he came to the US when he was 17. Let's try some pop-psychology: Is he trying to make amend and show he is a "REAL" American?

But that would be just pop-psychology not worthy of serious debate, wouldn't it?

Posted by: jpkoenig | September 16, 2010 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the author pretty much nailed it!

Posted by: GordonShumway | September 16, 2010 9:51 PM | Report abuse

The Forbes article just articulates what many ordinary, middle class citizens like myself and my spouse have noticed....Obama has yet to show in any way he identifies as an American citizen. He doesn't even articulate the requirements of being a citizen--his words to the effect that being an American citizen is not a matter of birth place or blood. (If that's true for all countries, I've always wanted to be French, just to be the cool fashionable one.)

The level of vitriol coming from the WH is amusing, because it shows just how insecure this President is.

Posted by: missyb1 | September 16, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

544- I seem to recall a lot of yellow cake uranium being taken out of Iraq by the US. Was Sadaam going to use that for a yellow brick road, or perhaps sell it to terrorists? You have no idea what Sadaam was going to do. He was a madman who could have turned to supplying terrorists. It would bot have been out of the realm of possibilities. No US oil companies profited from the invasion. COmpanies worked for the US military and usually they were large. But you don't send a kid to do a man's job. Joe's trucking service would not have made it in Iraq. You needed big companies, who could handle the job. So the idea that the war was for US companies profit is ludicrous. Foreign companies ended up with contracts for oil and metals in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The war was approved by Democrats all along the way. ANd the excuse they were lied to by Bush doesn't cut it because the Dems and liberals called him a moron. How could a moron out smart those intelligent Democrats?

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like the author pretty much nailed it!

Posted by: GordonShumway | September 16, 2010 9:52 PM | Report abuse

This is a funny incident to read about on these pages. About half the left is screaming foul about being called "anti-colonial" and the other half are defending their anti-colonialism.

For me it is clear that Obama is anti-colonial. The open issue is did he get this from his father or simply from the progressive movement? Really, its probably a combo of the two.

Posted by: scott3 | September 16, 2010 9:57 PM | Report abuse

If you knew deep down you were a fraud, and fooled the masses into buying your empty rhetoric, wouldn't you despise them for their stupidity? Wouldn't you believe you were above criticism, especially from those who were on to your charade from the beginning?

Posted by: ButIfNot | September 16, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse

"You have no idea what Sadaam was going to do. He was a madman who could have turned to supplying terrorists."

Actually he was brutal (our brute in Baghdad for many of his years), but not crazy. He made a very cold, rational decision to keep some people thinking he might have WMDs in order to keep Iran guessing. But our inspectors looked and looked and looked and found no evidence of them, until Bush pulled them out of Iraq because they weren't finding the "right answer" to fit the plan he and PNAC had the day he came into office. I'm surprised you don't know this, though perhaps you're only feigning ignorance.

"No US oil companies profited from the invasion."

False. Texas' own Hunt Oil, with the express (but at first vehemently publicly denied) help from the Bush Administration, struck a very nice deal with the Kurds and I believe are doing quite well to this day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070203322.html

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/hunt_oil_and_the_bush_admin_a_timeline_of_correspondence.php

There are probably others, but the media has steered very wide of the oil issue ever since that war was even contemplated.

You really might want to get out more and stop relying on Faux for your information.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 16, 2010 10:07 PM | Report abuse

I read the article and I found it a thoughtful and interesting analysis of how the President thinks. I dare you to use your mind, read the article objectively, and make up your own mind without people like me or our thin-skinned President influencing your own analysis. I double dog dare you!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: jadrummond | September 16, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

I read the article and I found it a thoughtful and interesting analysis of how the President thinks. I dare you to use your mind, read the article objectively, and make up your own mind without people like me or our thin-skinned President influencing your own analysis. I double dog dare you!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: jadrummond | September 16, 2010 10:10 PM | Report abuse

So is there one iota of goodness in him? Could be that you forgot to mention it?.
Or maybe because you could not find any? Are you sure you came from India? And now you are free to say anything because you are a free man living in a free country and not writing about an Indian President or being locked up their for it?

Posted by: par12 | September 16, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

B202- The Kurds made their own deal. They are semi-autonomous. The media stopped calling it an oil war because their was no oil companies with contracts after with the Iraqi govt. It was a liberal rant with no basis. THe only Faux news is that put out by the MSM who claimed Obama was a moderate, covered him much more favorably than McCain, and took his side as the messiah all the way.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

So is there one iota of goodness in him? Could be that you forgot to mention it?.
Or maybe because you could not find any? Are you sure you came from India? And now you are free to say anything because you are a free man living in a free country and not writing about an Indian President or being locked up their for it?

Posted by: par12 | September 16, 2010 10:12 PM | Report abuse

B202- The Kurds made their own deal. They are semi-autonomous. The media stopped calling it an oil war because their was no oil companies with contracts after with the Iraqi govt. It was a liberal rant with no basis. THe only Faux news is that put out by the MSM who claimed Obama was a moderate, covered him much more favorably than McCain, and took his side as the messiah all the way.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

You forgot to mention one good thing about Obama!

Posted by: par12 | September 16, 2010 10:16 PM | Report abuse

B202...

You say "there are probably others, but the media has steered very wide of the oil issue...". That is an interesting accusation. Do you have any evidence?

Posted by: scott3 | September 16, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Psychological theory would be Steve Forbes is a unscrupulous and deceitful person who picked up those traits from his father. And maybe racism. That would be nature. Nurture would be winning the sperm lottery.

Other than that he's a self-made man.

Posted by: cscherf | September 16, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

jschmidt wrote"

"544- I seem to recall a lot of yellow cake uranium being taken out of Iraq by the US. Was Sadaam going to use that for a yellow brick road, or perhaps sell it to terrorists? You have no idea what Sadaam was going to do. He was a madman who could have turned to supplying terrorists. It would bot have been out of the realm of possibilities. No US oil companies profited from the invasion."

The yellow cake uranium you cite was leftover from the days when Iraq had nuclear reactors. The Israelis bombed one in 1981. We bombed the other one in the Persian Gulf War.
All of the uranium named was not weapons grade and was known and secured. It was not the uranium referred to in the UN speech. Furthermore both Shell and Exxon are part of consortiums doing business in Iraq. The decayed state of the Iraqi oil industry has meant that no one or two companies can handle the investment alone.

Finally, I am actaully pro-oil. I'm a bit modified version of drill baby drill. However your statement is contradicted by no less than Alan Greenspan in his most recent book. Remembering that he was appointed by Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush, Greenspan wrote:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,”

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

"B202- The Kurds made their own deal. "

The Bush White House was helping them arrange it even as they pretended publicly to be against the deal. They were probably one of the oil companies that met with Cheney back in 2002 in the White House to talk about Iraq - a meeting the minutes of which he fought to the Supreme Court to keep from the American people.

"THe only Faux news is that put out by the MSM who claimed Obama was a moderate"

And in fact, he has governed as a moderate conservative. He's continued most of Bush's policies militarily (true? no?). On the fiscal front, he pushed through the health care proposal that the GOP itself proposed in 1993, as a response to HillaryCare. He's proposing now that the super-wealthy pay a tax rate MUCH LOWER than they did under "noted Marxist" Ronald Reagan.

Just because ("fair and balanced") FauxNews has been pumping this absurd "socialist" meme every night since he arrived in Washington doesn't mean you get to abandon objective reality. Not if you want to be considered sane.

Posted by: B2O2 | September 16, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

I defy ANYBODY and I mean ANYBODY to recite or recall what they were thinking or what their call in life was to be when they were two years old!

Rich people and politicians most favorite used phrase when being interviewed or testifying in a court of law is the "I don't remember!" montra.

According to this author(?) a dead man 28 years departed, is a well of information
more so than the living, so what kind of medium did the author(?) use to interview A dead man?

I wonder if it was palins witch doctor up in Wassila, while sharing a little of the Matanuska thunderfu#k drawn through a Elk horn!

Posted by: victorlove1 | September 16, 2010 10:35 PM | Report abuse

A thread that keeps reappearing in comments from detractors of our President is that 'no one knows who Obama is or what he believes.'

Really? The information is out there, readily available. Years ago, an autobiographical coming-to-maturity book presenting his childhood and young adulthood in a lot of detail. During the campaign, 'The Audacity of Hope,' detailing his vision for the country and the policies he advocates. Also, a book compiling all the bills he sponsored or co-sponsored when in the Senate sheds some light on what he believes. He records an address on a current issue once a week, posted on the White House Blog. At press conferences, he answers questions at length, explaining his thinking. As to the allegedly 'sealed birth records' etc. that's just false; how can it still be going around the internet?

Anyone who considers the President a dark (!) sinister figure simply isn't reading, watching, or listening. Or else already 'knows' what I recently read in an opinion letter-to-editor, that no utterance of his can be believed because he is a 'viper speaking with a forked tongue.'

We don't need these pseud-psychological analyses, much less all the hateful and degrading comments of people who apparently do not read, watch, or listen to the man whose identity and beliefs they say 'nobody knows.' Anyone who wants to know, can easily find out. It's out there in the news every day.

Posted by: PeggyB1 | September 16, 2010 10:40 PM | Report abuse

54465446...

Well, Greenspan's comments are a bit different than the typical "its about oil" argument. Number one, Greenspan was talking about the first Gulf War. Also, the role oil played in his argument wasn't that we wanted to steal the Iraqi's oil. It was that Saddam controlling that amount of oil left the United States little to no economic leverage to remove him from Kuwait. It also gave Saddam plenty of money and influence to pursue WMD.

From those arguments, I too, can agree that these wars had a lot to do with oil and its multiplying effect on the power a dictator like Saddam could wield. Its just that those are not the arguments people are commonly referring to (see B202). Typically "about oil" infers "we are going to steal their oil" -- and that's crap.

Posted by: scott3 | September 16, 2010 10:43 PM | Report abuse

Well facts are facts, Obama or his Administration have not shown any pertinent documents that may be used to prove that he is even an American Citizen.

Obama holds many infamous records:
1)Best destroyer of the economy (last 65 years)
2)Most socialist President in our Nation's history.
3)Most anti-Constitution in the life of the Republic.
4)Most debt creating President (during no war periods) in US History.
5)Most polarizing President ever.
6)Most lies in the shortest time.
Better stop here as the list goes on and on.......

Fortunately, he is a one term President as in the 2012 election many States will require a birth certificate among other things.

Posted by: CubanAmericanharto | September 16, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

the author says that the president "adopted his father's position that capitalism and free markets are code words for economic plunder....
==========================================
Sorry, but Obama's economic and foreign policies are anything but totally opposite from what the article implies....

Posted by: bromisky | September 16, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

missyb wrote:

"The Forbes article just articulates what many ordinary, middle class citizens like myself and my spouse have noticed....Obama has yet to show in any way he identifies as an American citizen. He doesn't even articulate the requirements of being a citizen--his words to the effect that being an American citizen is not a matter of birth place or blood."

You won't believe me of course, but perhaps these words might come back to you?

"I just want to tell you one little added thing about our country, and then I leave. This, again, is a letter I received not too long ago from a man, who wrote and told me this: He said, ``You can go to France to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Japan; you cannot become a German or a Japanese, or a Turk, or Greece a Greek. But the one place in the world,'' he said, ``where anyone from any corner of the world can come: America -- come to live and become an American.'' And no other country has that but ours."

I had the privilege of hearing him speak many times in person. If I close my eyes I can hear the sound of his voice today. The man who said the above quote was President Ronald Reagan

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 10:46 PM | Report abuse


THE FACTS:
Obama promised to join a church in Washington and did not, he declared we are no longer a Christian nation, turned his back on Israel, refused to wear the flag pin, apologized to Muslims, dishonored the national anthem, and he refuses to participate in any Christian gatherings. He claims he worships privately, but will not allow an interview with “his Chaplin” Cary Cash. He is of Muslim faith. You Obama supporters are being taken for fools.
.

Posted by: Billw3 | September 16, 2010 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Being an Indian Christain, Dinesh D'souza carrys a Colonial British mentality to write something like that

Posted by: zinger2 | September 16, 2010 10:50 PM | Report abuse

scott3 wrote:

"Well, Greenspan's comments are a bit different than the typical "its about oil" argument. Number one, Greenspan was talking about the first Gulf War."

No you are completely incorrect. He was talking aobut the invasion in 2003. Why humiliate yourself by making false assertions that 2 minutes of reserch would have prevented?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

So, am I to take it that the Newt's Republoculters are coming out FOR colonialism? If so, then no surprise, it was highly favored, back in its day by greedy, amoral, old white guys.

Posted by: rkerg | September 16, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Being an indian Christain Dinesh Dsouza deffinitely carries a Colonial British mentality to write something like that....no wonder

Posted by: zinger2 | September 16, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

So, am I to take it that the Newt's Republoculters are coming out FOR colonialism? If so, then no surprise, it was highly favored, back in its day by lazy, greedy, amoral, old white guys.

Posted by: rkerg | September 16, 2010 10:54 PM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza has nailed Barack Hussein Obama to a tee.

Obama is a very angry fake African who is taking his anger on what was once the greatest country on earth - before he came along.

The Brits did his daddy wrong so it explains Obama sending back the Churchill bust, ignoring the Sazorsky's of France, leaving Netanyahu of Israel in a room all by himself in the White House, among other things.

Robert Fibbs needs to shut his piehole since he once again doesn't know what he is talking about.

Posted by: cvicic1959 | September 16, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

Whomever is the most outrageous wins, at least the limelight.

Have a Koran burning party, call the president's thought Kenyan neo-colonialist (sounds like furniture or coffee) or give a speech on the anniversary of a historic speech at the exact same location or the original speech, on a completely unrelated topic...and voila, the world media stage is all yours.

Just be outrageous.

What a culture.

What a country.

Posted by: inono | September 16, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight. The "anti-American" Obama sends back a bust of Churchill that had only been in the Oval on loan for 8 years, and replaces it with a bust of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and THAT'S supposed to be a bad thing? If so can you imagine the clamor if he had taken a bust of Abraham Lincoln OUT of the Oval Office?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 16, 2010 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Mind boggling how the arrogance of this little man can set off such a torrent of nastiness. I do not pretend to know what this Dinesh or anyone else thinks. However I do suspect that he does not. Maybe he can't?

The whole alleged psychological study is as presumptious as it is laughable. It's time that people living in glass houses should stop playing with stones. Grow up.

Posted by: castleb | September 16, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

54465446...

My quote from Greenspan referring to the first gulf war comes from a Bob Woodward interview. I must have hit a nerve for you to get so offensive.

Nevertheless, I stand by my "about oil" comments. Those are more important than who knows how to spell research properly.

Posted by: scott3 | September 16, 2010 11:18 PM | Report abuse

B202- You say Obama is a moderate conservative? Well not any one that I would know or vote for. He is about as far left as any President we've had. He has passed every big government bill Pelosi/Reid could dream up. No moderate coservative ever pushes for the type of government intrusion Obama has pushed. Next you'll be saying he is a Tea Party candidate.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

B202- You say Obama is a moderate conservative? Well not any one that I would know or vote for. He is about as far left as any President we've had. He has passed every big government bill Pelosi/Reid could dream up. No moderate coservative ever pushes for the type of government intrusion Obama has pushed. Next you'll be saying he is a Tea Party candidate.

Posted by: jschmidt2 | September 16, 2010 11:21 PM | Report abuse

The Millionaires and Billionaires are upset because Obama pulled the Carpet from under their feet. I don't know about anybody else but I'm waiting for Paladino in New York. I can't wait to vote against him. The Tea Party wont bring their B.S. to New York. Were not going to the Right. Especially with a bunch of hypocrits,liars, just like Boehner who is black and passed all his life as a white man. Sara Palin, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle. NO Thanks We don't want them. I worked all my life and I'm not going to let these nut jobs snatch my Entitlements away. I want everything that I'm entitle too.

Posted by: amosdefnails | September 16, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

These Repubican teabaggers and has-beens like Newt and indented servant (of the GOP) D'Souza, must really be utterly desperate! Forbes magazine, like its owner, is upper class trash material.

Fact is, its all part of this Obama bashing that started from the first day the Dems whipped the the single-race party from its primal cave in Washington. Fact is, regardless what the GOP thinks or does, its a doomed party in the long run. A party that disdains the poor, blue collar workers, the middle class, foreigners, people of color, single women, the unemployed and even Barney, and which caters to the rich, Wall Street, big business and oil barons, will in the end wind up with its snout in the mud!

There is something called demographics, and it tells us that in less than a generation, latinos will be 1/3 of the population in the US. That scares the neo-fascists on the right. These folks will not give the GOP the time of day.

BUsh inherits the first surplus of our country, and splits it with his GOP buddies and cronies, at the expense of the rest of America. And before that his dad and family ripped off the Texas Savings and loans.

And before that the movie star turned patriot has his bunch peddlign dope to buy weapons and knock down little governments in Central America. Does the GOP forget that? I haven't!

And now, to top it off, they've discarded all the moderates in that so-called party like useless trash bags. A party of hate and greed, with the monotone outer message of no government, more tax breaks for the rich and class and racial warfare against the rest of America, including progressive whites, is doomed to end in the trashheap of history, as it rightfully deserves.

But alas, let's get the Prez, all of this is his fault! Well, gridlock is coming, and though it may sound Italian, regardless what the GOP thinks its going to do, they better get ready for President VETO!

Posted by: rAVCAR | September 16, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow. All the oinking and grunting from the Democrats! GREAT Forbes article --- everyone should read it! Which, uh, is not what OhBummer had in mind for you to do when Gibbs and the other Attack Poodles on his team started chewing up poor Dinesh. Uh oh. Poodles and Piggies!

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 16, 2010 11:58 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be a “Warmonger!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.

So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 12:00 AM | Report abuse

OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.

And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.

He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.

He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.

He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.

He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.

He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 12:03 AM | Report abuse

scott3 wrote:

'My quote from Greenspan referring to the first gulf war comes from a Bob Woodward interview. I must have hit a nerve for you to get so offensive.

Nevertheless, I stand by my "about oil" comments. Those are more important than who knows how to spell research properly."

LOL Yes, some of the posters on here just repeat the same thing over and over, and more than annoy me. It doesn't matter whether it's a clearly demonstrable falsehood or not. It's fine if people don't like Obama or won't vote for him, but why repeat so many lies. There's enough true information out there that is not flattering to him. I don't know what Woodward said, but if you read the text, Greenspan was referring to 2003, but I agree that it is not very germaine. Just one of a million things jschmidt got wrong in his post.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER! TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……

"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”

“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!

But the Democrats believe in "statism" - not "liberalism."

They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology - we say "the government" here in the USA - rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism - this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government - it is a constabulary - and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights - The Rights of Man - are the gift of nature or of nature's god - and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago - and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners - by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.

Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?

Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then - kick over the bloody coffee tables - and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

We live in a twisted political world indeed, when the President of the United States, vehemently denies being influenced by his father in order to defend himself.

Posted by: rjspry1 | September 17, 2010 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Now who do I believe? Obama...who has lied about almost everything to push through a socialist and anti capitalist agenda.....or a magazine writer who is trying to promote his book.

I don't know the writer....but I know Obama and he is a socialist liar so the writer wins by default!

Posted by: daf62757 | September 17, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

What a cheap shot from a man who considers himself as intellectual.Does he know his geography that Hawaii is a state Of US.Obama went to Indonesia with his mother who remarried.
Dinesh came from post colonial India where
secularism gave him chance to come up.After
coming to US he acquired American accent and American wife but forgot to change his Hindu first name! "Jewel in the Crown",India fought against British colonialism so did this great nation US and we became a Republic.I was born and raised in British colonial Africa.For three generations we thrived and were happy to see one day Union Jack was lowered.Millions of countrymen had joyful feelings.In the neighboring countries worst colonial masters,Belgians.Portuguese looted,plundered and left legacy of chaos which is still present.How come you care for colonial masters?
Dinesh there are country club boys in GOP who hate your color.I have many a friend but they understand economic power.Change your color,if you can.

Posted by: gamad44 | September 17, 2010 12:42 AM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

LOL, what a freaking joke! You can find Time and Newsweek (ObamaWeek) magazine at any dentist office and both publications are profoundly lacking in truth and fact. And I can't recall a single instance when Gibbs gave an honest or straight-forward answer to any question.

Posted by: Ian_Mc | September 17, 2010 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Why all this psychological analysis about Obama's relationship with his father? Of course Obama adapted the idiotic ideology of anti-colonialist like many on the left, like the majority of academics, like many at Harvard. It is a pathetic ideology, but it is the dominant ideology of those in his circles on the far far left.

Posted by: jcam1 | September 17, 2010 1:50 AM | Report abuse

What does the Messiah's pet wiener dog know about truth and fact? The guy lies through his teeth every day of his life. My guess is that he has to have his nose filed down every day just to look moderately normal. When Websters comes out with a new edition of their dictionary, they should have a picture of Gibbs next to the word "liar." And they should have a picture of Obama, Pelosi and Reid next to the words "socialist" and "traitor."

Posted by: harrygett | September 17, 2010 1:54 AM | Report abuse

I think D'Souza was too soft on Obama. He failed to mention Obama's adoption of the communist Saul Alinsky's ideology and his book "Rules for Radicals".

Posted by: numag | September 17, 2010 2:05 AM | Report abuse

Mr. D'Souza's article is thought-provoking.All the vitriol expressed in the blogs is weird!And the lack of logical thinking and understanding--frightening. I think it's reasonable to posit that a bright boy, abandoned by his father, would grow up yearning for and idealizing his absent father. We are hard-wired to love our parents; it's a survival characteristic. Even badly abused children love the adults who abuse or neglect them. They may form a fantasy of the parent, and seek more earnestly than normal children do, to gain approval of the imagined figure and to model behavior they believe will obtain the love and approval of such a fantasy. Public figures are fair game for this sort of speculation! Grow up, readers!

For all of you who are outraged that America will seek power and influence in the world, or even (shudder)oil: watch the charming documentaries about the meerkats.
They spend most of their time scratching for grubs and worms, screwing each other, and establishing dominance. If they have a little extra time and opportunity, they will rush over to another clan's territory and savagely try to take it away, so they can mine the grubs and worms there. People are not so different. What makes many of us nervous about this President is that he can't seem to decide which clan he belongs to, and which group he should defend. After all, oil is the lifeblood of our technological society, and there are bad meerkats out there who would see us weak enough for them to chance a raid on OUR grubs and worms.

Finally, for those of you who worry that the Tea Parties are terrorists--what unites these groups are desires for smaller government, less spending, and lower taxes. That's all. It's felt the politicians have ignored these people who want to be heard and to have their views respected, even if disagreed with. The responses of minimizing, name-calling and lecturing (Nancy Pelosi is a prime example) are infuriating.

And I have to ask what accounts for the awful grammar, spelling, typos, etc. Are youall typing with your thumbs?

Posted by: tennessee1 | September 17, 2010 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Obama gave back the bust of Churchill back to Britan!

So I'd say that D'Souza is right on the mark! Or should I say.. Right on the Karl Marx! Spead the wealth around, spead the health around... Give amnesty to everyone! Come on Karl lets have some FUN!

Obama should invite Karl Marx Rove to the Whitehouse! Or Pope Benedict Arnold aka Amnesty Arnold XVI! Lets talk Amnesty it's a SHAMNESTY!

If people want open borders, why should the District of Columbia have State hood? If there are no borders, D.C. is Virgina?

Right? All the "illegals from Deleware, Virgina etc". They are non-DC citizens...

Why have a fence around the Whitehouse?... Open Borders for the DC!

If you believe in Open Borders, why should DC become a State?

Progressives can't have it both ways? Right Al Sharpton, Barack Obama?

Posted by: ReddStripe | September 17, 2010 2:28 AM | Report abuse

If "anti-colonialism" was the worst thing ever said about this sorry regime, it would be giving them a pass. I could give you a list of more applicable names to describe them, but I only have 3,000 characters left.

Posted by: ringmaster76120 | September 17, 2010 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza is religious and prone to infection with malignant, nonsensical ideas. He should not be given any attention for trying to spread memeplexes with no validity.

Posted by: murmur55 | September 17, 2010 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Dinesh D'Souza is religious and prone to infection with malignant, nonsensical ideas. He should not be given any attention for trying to spread memeplexes with no validity.

I have no love for this "empty suit" of a president; perhaps if he had more real character he would be less prone to these off the wall attacks.

Posted by: murmur55 | September 17, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

I think this article nails the President exactly. My first reaction to his awful and obvious dissing of the Queen and Great Britain caused me to quip to my wife that He was acting like an Kenyan Nationalist with bitter attitude toward the old Mother Country. He disses the French too... Too bad the Germans lost their colonies in WWI or he would carry this through in his behavior toward them as well.

Posted by: CHR2 | September 17, 2010 3:22 AM | Report abuse

Have read enough prior comments about where McCain was born, and don't think for a minute the liberals didn't investigate his qualifications to run for POTUS.
McCain was born on a US navel ship. That's US soil.<period.net
It would be the same as being born inside a US embassy on foreign soil.
Obama, well, We can't confirm where He was born for his continued legal fees of $2mil.plus to conceal his long-form birth certificate, college records, passports etc.
Ever since He being sworn-in,(twice)the US taxpayer has picked-up the billing on legal fees on his validity of at least $1mil. of those $2mil.-too, btw. Not too many people are aware of that.

Posted by: biltong250 | September 17, 2010 3:46 AM | Report abuse

whaaaaaah, whaaah, whaaah. Thank God for the First Amendment. Go! FORBES and tell it like it is!

Posted by: pharmlaw | September 17, 2010 3:51 AM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," says Propaganda Minister Bob Fibbs in a fleeting moment of lucidity (and this, too, shall pass.)

Got that one right: shocking indeed to see articles lacking in truth and fact in practitioners' offices now that _Newsweek_ is out of business. But fear not, Bob. One will increasingly be able to read fact-free content in -- for example -- WaPo columns online as more dentists install WiFi.

Posted by: FrederickJZarguna | September 17, 2010 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Don't like the message? Destroy the messenger. Why does it seem that the White House is trying ever so hard to discredit the premise of this article when there have been thousands of other articles equally as critical? I think someone hit a nerve here and this is too close to the truth or they wouldn't be squealing like stuck pigs.

Posted by: sleestack108 | September 17, 2010 4:55 AM | Report abuse

Guess the truth hurts.

The Columbia Journalistic Review calling it, "...a singulary disgusting work." just continues to show the mainstream media bias against anything that debunks "His Majesty's" greatness and shows his true colors.

Posted by: nickwhitaker01 | September 17, 2010 5:42 AM | Report abuse

"the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

Hardly. That title would go the MSM when Palin 1st appeared on the ticket in '08. Keep screeching Obama. 2012 is getting closer and Nov is extremely close.

Posted by: illogicbuster | September 17, 2010 6:41 AM | Report abuse

I guess I need to read the article, but it seems odd to describe someone as 'anti-colonial' who doubled the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan and has over 150,000 troops and contractors occupying Iraq. The president presides over 700 bases in over 100 countries and has made no moves to change the situation. If this is anti-colonial, I'd hate to see imperial!

Posted by: pblumel | September 17, 2010 7:07 AM | Report abuse

The President doth protest too much methinks

Posted by: peru1 | September 17, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

OK, Robert Gibbs, what is the truth? I am getting tired of that rude, snide comment making, press secretary (or whatever he is this week) says about folks who either talk about what they see or what history has shown (in their own words) to make themselves out to be something they are trying desperately to hide. 1. POTUS has heavy Muslim roots, his actions tell the story. Bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and not taking his wife there confirms his belief...BY ACTION. 2. He is a confirmed Socialist by the people he surrounds himself with. Using his words, and the words of those he surrounds himself with, it is hard to argue that he is anything else but. 3. POTUS is out to destroy this country. Everyone, and everything that this country has stood for, he is overturning with a stroke of a pen. His executive orders are intended to take away our freedoms, limit our wealth, and cater to folks like George Soros and company. Just look at the drilling moritorium...look at the funds he sent to Brazil to support Mr. Soros. Come on folks, wake up! I don't hate the man, I just think he is the wrong person for the job and just happens to lie his way out when cornered. I have seen this with many other presidents, but not so blatant!

Posted by: manlyva | September 17, 2010 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Notes to Dinesh D'Souza: (1) Most Americans have foreign roots. (2) YOU have not only foreign roots, YOU are a FOREIGNER, an Indian carpetbagger here, like Rupert Murdoch, to prosper at the expense of the American people while you laugh and laugh behind our backs about what idiots the people who listen to you are. (For those of you about to protest my remark: I'm being satirical.)

Posted by: hmessinger2 | September 17, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

bitong250 wrote:

"Have read enough prior comments about where McCain was born, and don't think for a minute the liberals didn't investigate his qualifications to run for POTUS.
McCain was born on a US navel ship. That's US soil.<period.net
It would be the same as being born inside a US embassy on foreign soil.
Obama, well, We can't confirm where He was born for his continued legal fees of $2mil.plus to conceal his long-form birth certificate, college records, passports etc.
Ever since He being sworn-in,(twice)the US taxpayer has picked-up the billing on legal fees on his validity of at least $1mil. of those $2mil.-too, btw. Not too many people are aware of that"

Why be ignorant when the truth is so easily available?

-McCain wasn't born on a ship, he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but yes it wasn't a problem with his running for President

-Obama was born in Hawaii as confirmed by contemporaneous newspaper accounts giving the hospital and the current Republican governor.

-not one dime has been spent sealing any of his records. His records, like yours, are AUTOMATICALLY sealed unless you choose to open them

There's no problem with being against the President. That's why we have elections. But why be a willful ignoramus and lie about things that are so obviously disproved?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

The desire to be relevant will often shift ambitious people to act in manners that will ultimately diminish their relevance. So it is with Dinesh D'Souza. This man has made a living exploiting our nation's racial divide and many have fallen prey to this sophisticated con-man. It is unfortunate that Forbes magazine, which appears too willing to be used in this way, in publishing this thoughtless diatribe against the President, has betrayed the long line of fine and thoughtful writers whose graceful proses and stories have found expression in the past pages of this once relevant magazine. I 'll not be renewing my subscription to Forbes any time soon.

Posted by: Freedbytruth1980 | September 17, 2010 8:09 AM | Report abuse

What represents a new low Mr. Gibbs is Obama's Presidency and his disdain for the American people and the Constitution. Obama is a Communist and has proven that with out a shadow of a doubt with his Marxist czars.
Every aspect of Obama is about destroying America. You are part of it also.
Obama is the enemy of any Free thinking and Constitution honoring person.

Posted by: thenewyorktomesisacomicbook | September 17, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza probably writes out of his heart. Being Indian, and having seen the leftover society after the British exploited the Indians, leaving a country in poverty, with a class structure that discriminates based on the color of your skin, where children eat dead animals' carcasses and sleep in felthy, rats infected slums, I understand his point of view.
It is true that the vision one has of life is gathered unconciouly through the life events of the person. This fellow, Danish D'Souza, is probably a mixed race individual with Brazilian/Indian ancestry, who believes every person has the kind of brain activity he has inherited from these two groups of exploited, abused, confused, human groups. If he was in India, he would, as well as his sisters, mother,and father, belong to the lowest level of the racial structure of India. The ones that shook the fans for the imperialist British, as we can see in the movies. Now, in America, he has prospered and found a way to make money writing about himself, impersonating others. That is my personal opinion, based upon the freedom of speech..

Posted by: albertorparedes | September 17, 2010 8:15 AM | Report abuse

D'Souza is a cheap sell out who brown-nosing to the right wing racists; if it were not for African-American struggle for equality and openess in American society, Dinesh would still be carrying septic material and similar things in his homeland India where by birth his untouchable caste is only allowed to do.

Posted by: ere591 | September 17, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

All this time on the job and Gibbs and Obummer still don't get it. All he should have said was "what article, who cares about this guys goofy theory...next question."

Posted by: mgochs | September 17, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

ObaMao's "Dreams of His Father"...who was a Communist, imprisoned by the Brits...and apprently had enough influence on his son to make him the leftist he is. Without his teleprompter and gang of academic czars what is he? Mostly a joke making Jimma Carter look brilliant!

Posted by: NeoConVeteran | September 17, 2010 8:38 AM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

I know how Mr Gibbs feel, every time I here him talking I feel the same way!

David

Posted by: DavidinTX | September 17, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

If this article is so full of falsehoods, why does this administration bother to call attention to it with a public denunciation. These attacks, rather than limiting the damage, only simulates people's curiosity about the article. I believe it hits too close to home. It explains Obama's apology tour, his desire to transfer the wealth, not only here, but to the world, his attendance in Rev. Wright's church for over twenty years, his treatment of traditional US allies, his fellowship with fellow leftist leaders. Even Castro praised Comrade Obama for his transformation of the US. As has been the case since he took Hillary Clinton out in the primaries, Obama will use his bible, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to destroy all those who threaten his quest for power, his desire to remake the United States. Obama's father's dream can now become a reality. His son has his hands on the levers of power.

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Wes69 | September 17, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

If this article is so full of falsehoods, why does this administration bother to call attention to it with a public denunciation. These attacks, rather than limiting the damage, only simulates people's curiosity about the article. I believe it hits too close to home. It explains Obama's apology tour, his desire to transfer the wealth, not only here, but to the world, his attendance in Rev. Wright's church for over twenty years, his treatment of traditional US allies, his fellowship with fellow leftist leaders. Even Castro praised Comrade Obama for his transformation of the US. As has been the case since he took Hillary Clinton out in the primaries, Obama will use his bible, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to destroy all those who threaten his quest for power, his desire to remake the United States. Obama's father's dream can now become a reality. His son has his hands on the levers of power.

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Wes69 | September 17, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

Let us measure Dinesh D'Souza by the same yard stick.
Long ago India was a Hindu nation. The Moghul emperors did not bother them much. Then the Spaniards came to India for "trade" & to "propogate Christianity". The joke used to be, "wherever there is a monastry, there is an orphanage". Soon the Spanish monks & the pretty girls of Konkan-(famous for their good looks), created the D'Souzas, D'Cruses, D'Silvas et al. That was one way of propogating christianity.
Eventually they migrated to Goa & Mumbai, the glorified slum.
Dinesh D'souza was raised in Mumbai. He spent his formative years in that glorified slum. Hence the classlessness. His life's ambition is to draw attention by being obnoxious & provocative. He successfully did that from his student days. He is Anne Couter on steroids.

Posted by: sarvenk63 | September 17, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

If this article is so full of falsehoods, why does this administration bother to call attention to it with a public denunciation. These attacks, rather than limiting the damage, only simulates people's curiosity about the article. I believe it hits too close to home. It explains Obama's apology tour, his desire to transfer the wealth, not only here, but to the world, his attendance in Rev. Wright's church for over twenty years, his treatment of traditional US allies, his fellowship with fellow leftist leaders. Even Castro praised Comrade Obama for his transformation of the US. As has been the case since he took Hillary Clinton out in the primaries, Obama will use his bible, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to destroy all those who threaten his quest for power, his desire to remake the United States. Obama's father's dream can now become a reality. His son has his hands on the levers of power.

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Wes69 | September 17, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it ironic? The most transparently opaque, fact-bending and ignoring WH in U.S. history calling out a magazine publication for not fully checking facts. If that is the game they want to play I and millions of other Americans have a few questions for Obama that we would like fact-checked with 100% veracity. I don't think he will play that game. No matter, he's done anyway. Like a mouse in a maze, he has been sealed into the trap of his own making. Lying, subterfuge, condescension, avoidance, hubris, it goes on and on and on with Obama and his ilk. Someday, someday, the truth will be revealed about him. His complete background will be known. I truly am thankful I don't have the weight of his baggage. The lives he is destroying are untold. There will come a day when he has to answer...

Posted by: vikings4123 | September 17, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Remember Obama returned the Churchill bust?
Giving copies of hie speeches to Britain's Queen and Prime Minister? Generally dissing our ally?

That O's grandfather, a known subversive, and was jailed in Kenya under Churchill, would explain this.

Posted by: Currmudgeon | September 17, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

It must be extremely frustrating to be in the Obama WH. Gibbs knows all goodwill has been used up with the WH press corps. There is no respect for him and what he says. He can see the eyes rolling after each contorted reply/explanation he utters for the actions of Obama. To be liked is nice. To be disliked, given the right cause, is noble. To be tossed aside as irrelevant is maddening. Gibbs may be on that road to occupational insanity. Nobody is drinking the koolaid any longer.

Posted by: vikings4123 | September 17, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

It's a interesting theory to consider. Obama is a complex and flawed person, like the rest of us.

Posted by: fallenstar2005 | September 17, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, let's talk truth! For years you Libs bash Bush because he did nothing for the middle class. 8 years of "Tax Cuts for the Rich, nothing for the middle class!" Now you rubes want to extend Bush tax cuts to the middle class (that you say never existed), call it a tax cut (it's not a cut, no one is getting a cut) and calling it an Obama Tax Cut. Don't preach to me about truth!!!

Posted by: henleybw | September 17, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

wes69 wrote:

"If this article is so full of falsehoods, why does this administration bother to call attention to it with a public denunciation. These attacks, rather than limiting the damage, only simulates people's curiosity about the article."

Though I often defend the administration on these threads, you are 100% correct that his was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Nothing more than expected though from Gibbs who is the worst first choice for Press Secretary since . . . ?

Interesting that you also include a quote from Jefferson about fighting like men since he was one of the few Presidents to be accused of actual cowardice by his contemporaries like Patrick Henry and John Marshall. His moral cowardice, concerning slavery, is not even open to debate.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

vikings 4123 wrote:

"It must be extremely frustrating to be in the Obama WH. Gibbs knows all goodwill has been used up with the WH press corps. There is no respect for him and what he says."


Can't argue with you about this. The truth is the truth.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact,"

Why? Every time I listen to Obama speak on immigration reform, or anything else, I have ceased to be stunned by the omission of facts or truth.

Posted by: realitybreak67 | September 17, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

It's like watching kids trying to play government, simply amazing. I just wonder if their is anyone in this Administration that can tell the truth? I mean come on how can anyone believe a word of what they say. Oh well, hopefully there will be better things to talk about in Novemeber and maybe we can start to focus the energies of everyone on fixing the economy and reducing the unemployment ranks or maybe not.

Posted by: jimtoledo | September 17, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

curmudgeon wrote:

"Remember Obama returned the Churchill bust?
Giving copies of hie speeches to Britain's Queen and Prime Minister? Generally dissing our ally?"

Wow, what a group of sycophantic Anglophiles! It's really funny how you chastize the man for bowing to Saudi royalty, but also for not sucking up to British royalty.

I guess that bust which stood in the Oval for 8 years should have been there forever. I mean after all look at everything Churchill did for the US, saved us from the Germans and all that. I am sure the British would never return the bust of Franklin Roosevelt that sits in their PM's office! Too bad he didn't replace it with a bust of an American like Lincoln or somothing like that.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Wow - this is just amazing. In the same week we have an admission that Obama is ineligible to serve as President due to his Kenyan father, and a trashing of the 'first lady' because she hates the position she holds.

I say again, Wow! The wheels have come off this bus pretty good haven't they! Just stunning to see.

Posted by: bananaMan1 | September 17, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

OK Gibbs, make your case and prove them wrong. My guess is you can't and you won't. Facts are stubborn things. Great reporting Mr. D"Souza, hats off to Forbes for publishing.

Posted by: ScottY17 | September 17, 2010 9:39 AM | Report abuse

It is unbelievable to me how much this White House gets into the "face" of the media. If it's not what they like, look out. Well, someone better remind Gibbs and the President that this is a "free" country still and they better lose the "thin skin". Especially after seeing how much crap was published about President Bush, but of course, that was okay. Gibbs does nothing but help continue the appearance of a "cry baby White House", especially with a President who continues 1 1/2 into HIS presidency blaming the last president. What goes around, comes around... end of story.

Posted by: SCHMAMEBAH | September 17, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

All I can say about the WH reaction to the article is hit dog yelps. Of course I'd be sensitive too, if I was afraid to release any information about my bosses' past. No birth record, no school records, no employment records, nothing. I'm not sayin', just sayin'. Ya know!

Posted by: cpfstock1 | September 17, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

“We continue to elect those who are among the dumbest in our society and then we reap the benefits of their stupidity!”

Posted by: 312capri | September 17, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Sun52shine wrote: "This President has accomplished more for the working and middle class people in the US than any President before in the history of our country."

Your racism so obviously blinds you! Just because he's black, you apparently think that he has done great things, tell me, has he paid your mortgage yet? Buy you gas for your car? Really what has he done for the working middle class people in the U.S. besides putting them out of work, unemployment went from 6.1 in 2008 to 9.7 in 2010....and it doubled for black and hispanic Americans from 9.7 in 2008 to 17.something in 2010!!! Yeah, he's put our children into so much debt that they will never be able to pay it down, he has spent trillions more than every President since George Washington!!! These are facts, so please tell me what Oblama has done for you lately!!! Other than be the first black president....other than setting civil rights back 40 years, other than destroying America to form a global world order!!1 WHAT HAS OBLAMA DONE FOR YOU LATELY!!!

Posted by: ubuibi | September 17, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I object to the article based on the lies in it, and the whole psycho babble nonsense in what is normally a pretty interesting business magazine. I don't object to the whole anti-colonial thing though.

In case many of you don't know, the reason Cuba isn't the 51st state is because we as a people were rabidly anti-colonial before the Spanish-American War. After the war we made a huge mistake with the Phiilipines, but then corrected that in 1935 giving the Phillipines commonwealth status on the way to independence.

With a few exceptions like the Phillipines and Vietnam,(which can either be viewed as pro-colonial or anti-communist) we are an anti-colonial nation (you may have heard of the Monroe Doctrine, and the John Hay Open Door Policy in China) It might surprise even D'Souza to learn that Eisenhower refused to support Great Britain and France during the Suez Crisis partially because we could not be seen supporting the dying embers of British and French colonialism.

I have been a poster too long though to think that facts matter at all.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The line aboout Obama as "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history," is worth a chuckle. The most anti-business president in American history was a great man, the greatest trust-buster in American history, and a Republic, by the name of Theodore Roosevelt. The editors of Republican propaganda rags ought to know this.

Posted by: lonquest | September 17, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

you have to laugh at his comment that the magazine is only seen in doctors office well it seems the white house is included. we can call them a dentists office. if ever their was a place most americans dont want to go to its that place. lol when you are desperate after 2 years of being a total failure then stupidity shows!

Posted by: carl6352 | September 17, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I love listening to Prez Zero and his minions whine. I cant believe these dolts respond to all of the criticism they receive. Havent they learned that more people find out about these stories when they complain and it gets out to the whole populous as opposed to the small group who read just the original publication? Well, I guess I shouldnt expect more, they are libtards after all.

Posted by: penitentiary_steel | September 17, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

You can usually find the damage by seeing where the patient squeals the loudest. D'Souza must be getting close.

Meanwhile, Kurtz: "Hawaii, of course, may be off the American mainland, but it is hardly out of the American mainstream." He's never really lived there, or he would know that there is a completely different mindset at work there. It may not be un-American, but it is frequently un-mainstream.

Posted by: beezdotcom | September 17, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

With all that drinking and abusing women, I'm surprised Sr. even had time to inflict all those "teachings" into the brain of a 2-year old.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 17, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

How did President Obama, get a passport to go to Pakistan in 1981 when the United States was NOT issuing Pakistani passports at that time?

Posted by: kenema69 | September 17, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

312capri, that was a great comment.

Posted by: kenema69 | September 17, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

lonquest wrote:

"The line aboout Obama as "the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history," is worth a chuckle. The most anti-business president in American history was a great man, the greatest trust-buster in American history, and a Republic, by the name of Theodore Roosevelt"

Sorry, I'm a great admirer of TR, but nobody else comes close to being as anti-business as Thomas Jefferson. In his own personal life he was a collossal business failure, being heavily indebted to both French and British creditors because he had champagne tastes and a beer budget. He would have wound up in debtors' prison had he not been TJ.

This carried over to his political philosophy where he wished us to be a nation of yeoman farmers because he hated banks and crdit. He was the chief opponent of Alexander Hamilton who should be considered the father of American capitalism. He also put through legislation, the Embargo Act of 1807 which forbade any American vessels to embark for a foreign port. It was an effort to prevent war with Great Britain, but it wrecked the economy and failed to prevent war.

Good effort at using factual analysis on a post though. You must be new here!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 10:34 AM | Report abuse

Just how deep are those roots? The CIA won't take leaders who aren't blue bloods, but the 'people', if they're bloodless democrats, will elect anyone with a D behind their name 'cause it means more money for me from people I don't know, or OPP as the hip hop folks say. Gee, what a way to run a party, huh?

Posted by: dgbee | September 17, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Billw3 - Off the meds again, huh?

Lapel pin? Christian nation? National anthem? What, you get all of your "facts" from chain e-mails?

Seriously, you should have to pass a test before you should be able to cast a vote. You are mentally deranged.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 17, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says...

SO WHERE IS THE Fn BC already and we DONT mean the phony COLB posed on the WWW.

Posted by: harpotoo | September 17, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

kenema69 wrote:

"How did President Obama, get a passport to go to Pakistan in 1981 when the United States was NOT issuing Pakistani passports at that time?"

This may surprise you but the US doesn't issue Pakistani passports, even TODAY!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 10:39 AM | Report abuse

"WHAT HAS OBLAMA DONE FOR YOU LATELY!!!"

He cut my Federal taxes.

He gave me more credit for my 3 kids in college at the same time.

He passed health care reform that will allow my kids to be on my policy until age 26. He made sure everyone will have basic coverage, something every other industrialized nation already does.

He took the collapsing economy that hemorrhaged 3 trillion dollars of wealth as Dubya was crawling back to his ranch and at least has kept us from free-falling into a depression.

He is leading the way to finally begin the tough task of weaning ourselves of of foreign oil.

He has pulled combat troops out of Iraq, where we had no business being.

He has strengthened our relationships with our allies around the world.

Want any more?

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 17, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I think the article is excellant. Calls Obama for what he is "anti-business" and in some cases "anti-american".

Posted by: Ramrod1 | September 17, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Good article. Not this one, the one in Forbes.

Posted by: Fool_Killer | September 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

I'm an Irish guy whose grandparents came a 100 years ago to here. According to black liberation theology , when my grandparents were starving they should have shared their potatoes. Therefore I am guilty also. I'm sorry check out my apology below.

Please Check out song called teapartiers I can’t hear you at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJfboOindCo

Posted by: JoeAstroturf | September 17, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm an Irish guy whose grandparents came a 100 years ago to here. According to black liberation theology , when my grandparents were starving they should have shared their potatoes. Therefore I am guilty also. I'm sorry check out my apology below.

Please Check out song called teapartiers I can’t hear you at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJfboOindCo

Posted by: JoeAstroturf | September 17, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

steve-2304 "Want any more?" Delusions? No, you have enough for everyone already, thank you.

Posted by: Fool_Killer | September 17, 2010 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Wow, the birther movement still has legs? Honestly? Long form?

C'mon, people. This is ridiculous. If you can't even get past the birth certificate, there really is no sense trying to debate complex issues like economic and political philosophies.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

It would be awesome if the Forbes article were true. That would mean that Obama's "anti-colonialist" view would lead to the USA closing its 770 overseas military bases and bringing home our 1 million troops stationed at them. Then we could finally concentrate all our resources on fixing the "homeland."

Posted by: mongolovesheriff | September 17, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

steve 2304 wrote:

"He is leading the way to finally begin the tough task of weaning ourselves of of foreign oil.

He has pulled combat troops out of Iraq, where we had no business being"

Sorry steve, I'm a Democrat but I love the truth more. He is not weaning us off foreign oil, THANK GOD, since there is no reason to do so. Canada is our number one supplier of foreign oil, and oil is so valuable for it's energy density that there is literally nothing yet available that can replace it. Also all of our troops still in Iraq are "combat troops". We only changed the designation to support political objectives.


Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Hey rambostiltskin,
Tell me about the great African civilizations (not including Egypt) that flourished before the Europeans especially the British tried to civilize the hell hole of Africa. Whats happened since the white devil Colonialists have gone? The natives are back to killing and slaughtering each other on an epic scale, because they have 21st century weapons. Take a look at South Africa and what is has turned into since the Afrikanners were replaced by the masses.It may not be politically correct as most of the readers of the Post are, but in 50 years through the massive AIDS epidemic and the millions of self inflicted deaths, Africa will be the worlds largest Wildlife refuge, which should make all the Earth first sob's very happy.

Posted by: sburkhalter | September 17, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Gibbs is such an idiot. I didn't think anyone in the White House could even read, more less comment on a story in a magazine. Go-Figure!

Posted by: PoohsHeart | September 17, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"He is not weaning us off foreign oil, THANK GOD, since there is no reason to do so."

No reason? Exactly how many years' worth of oil do you think there is left that can be relatively easily brought to market?

How many years worth are left in countries that we should be buying it from?

(I'm assuming you're not OK with us continuing to make billionaires out of Saudis and others that would attack us? Or maybe you have no problem with our dollars going to support these Islamic regimes?)

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 17, 2010 11:18 AM | Report abuse

I haven't seen this many cry babies since I toured a Russian orphanage.

Posted by: deadralive | September 17, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Oil is being found in greater size in greater places and WHO buried all those Dinos 5 MILES under the sea and way down inside of the earth?

No Fn way oil just comes from Dinos and we've seen it's PEAK!

Seems the earth just CHURNS it out as a natural product.

Thank you GOD for all that you have given US and the rest of the world on your wonderful green earth:-)

Posted by: harpotoo | September 17, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I lived in Honolulu in the early 1970s, no more than a half dozen blocks from where President Obama was growing up and just down the street from the prep school he was attending (no wonder he sent his kids to The Sidwell Friends School rather than a public school). At that time there was nowhere on the island of Oahu which resembled the continental United States of the early 1970s. I imagine it was more akin to Indonesia.

Posted by: OldTimer7 | September 17, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

sounds like D'souza was spot on with his observation

Posted by: glenp8271 | September 17, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

steve 2304 wrote:

"No reason? Exactly how many years' worth of oil do you think there is left that can be relatively easily brought to market?

How many years worth are left in countries that we should be buying it from?

(I'm assuming you're not OK with us continuing to make billionaires out of Saudis and others that would attack us? Or maybe you have no problem with our dollars going to support these Islamic regimes?)"

C'mon Steve, we should be on the same side, but you've got to do your research.

The ease of bringing oil to market is a function of price. There is no way to know how much oil there is left because of the way commodity markets function. When prices are low, exploration ceases, production drops and everyone says peak oil is here, but amazingly as the price rises new despoits are found and we have to admit that we have no idea when peak oil may occur.

If you did a little research you would also find out that unlike 1973, oil is produced in more than 30 nations worldwide today. Only 20% of our imported oil comes from "these Islamic regimes", and those are at least nominally our allies Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.

Sorry, sometimes facts just get in the way of a good story!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

joeastroturf wrote:

"I'm an Irish guy whose grandparents came a 100 years ago to here. According to black liberation theology , when my grandparents were starving they should have shared their potatoes. Therefore I am guilty also. I'm sorry check out my apology below."

No the British should have stop taking food exports out of the mouths of our common ancestors and tried to help them instead.

Oh wait, they can't be to blame because there was a bust of Churchill in the Oval. Damn, I'll have to rethink this because I certainly don't want to be called anti-colonial!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

The anti-colonialism philosophy proposed by the author would explain why the President ordered the return of the bust of Winston Churchill days after taking office.

Posted by: Always-Irreverent | September 17, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Gibbs:

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact,"
- - -
Are you kidding me!?!?!? Where were you Mr. Gibbs when all the Left Wing media has shamelessly lied about every Conservative they wanted to destroy? The stunning thing, Mr. Gibbs, is to listen to your insidious propaganda day in and day out.

Thanks for "plugging" the book though. I can't wait until it comes out to buy it and read it avidly.

Posted by: JJW12345 | September 17, 2010 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The anti-colonialism philosophy proposed by the author would explain why the President ordered the return of the bust of Winston Churchill days after taking office.

Posted by: Always-Irreverent | September 17, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Always-irreverent wrote:

"The anti-colonialism philosophy proposed by the author would explain why the President ordered the return of the bust of Winston Churchill days after taking office."

. . . and you think that's a bad thing? You must not be an American!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Oh, NO!!! Someone DARED publish an article not pleasing to Obama-ites???

Waaaaaa!!!

Just a SMALL taste of the unmitigated tripe that Bush supporters had to put up with for 8 years!

Get used to it -- more on the way!!!!!

Posted by: doug222 | September 17, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

My last post was a litte tongue-in-cheek, to mimic the usual things you see on these threads.

Here's my better answer

It might surprise you to learn that we were an extremely anti-British nation for the first 100 years. We fought two open wars against them, a half-dozen small skirmishes, and nearly went to war with them in the Civil War. The change in attitude toward the British is exclusively the result of the efforts of second generation rich Americans in the 1880's forward to create an American aristocracy by marrying the old world. In fact, Winston Churchill was the result of just such a union of cash and title.

This nation has, to sum up my earlier post, been rabidly anti-colonial since the beginning. The most ferociously anti-colonial man of the 20th century was President Woodrow Wilson. Almost alone among the victorious allies of WWI we refused to take any territorial concessions. Eisenhower may have been our second most anti-colonial president, refusing to assist the British and French at the Suez, and offering only the most minimal but unfortunately expandable assistance to the French in Vietnam.

D'Souza's family was an abettor of colonialism in his native India however, even going so far as to become Roman Catholic. This put his family in less than 1% of the Indian population, but served them well in Goa where it was the religion of all the quisling families.

D'Souza's article is really a look in the mirror where he saw Obama's face instead of his own.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Hussein-Obama was elected by american-idol swing voters because he looked good in a suit and has a deep voice that sounded pelasing to them on TV. These voters were far too shallow to comprehend political philosophy on even the most basic level. I'd like to applaud Forbes for putting this subject on the table. There is no hope for the nation...we are entrenched in a death spiral toward socialist collapse already, but nonetheless, I applaud Forbes for not going down without a fight.

Posted by: Vincent1966 | September 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Enough parasites voted for the false promise of a free lunch, and now we have a Trojan Horse in the Whitehouse. To call him a traitor is to insinuate he was once on our side. He does not have "the consent of the governed." This social experiment has set race relations back 50 years.

The manipulators are executing their plan for 'fundamental change' to Totalitarian Marxism. Vote for the return of freedom.
These are times that try men's souls. God save our Constitutional Republic!

"During times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell '1984'

Posted by: SmithWinston6748 | September 17, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Hussein-Obama was elected by american-idol swing voters because he looked good in a suit and has a deep voice that sounded pelasing to them on TV. Of course, there's also the guilt laid down for decades about blacks...garbage about how a black president would somehow "heal" the evil racism in everyone not black (blacks cannot by definition be prejudiced in this country). These voters were far too shallow to comprehend a candidate's political philosophy on even the most basic level. I'd like to applaud Forbes for putting this subject on the table. There is no hope for the nation...we are entrenched in a death spiral toward socialist collapse already, but nonetheless, I applaud Forbes for not going down without a fight for truth about this horror of a "leader".

Posted by: Vincent1966 | September 17, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

When evaluating Obama, I think a lot of people give less weight to "Dreams From My Father" than they should, as they do to his statements. The book was written well after he reached adulthood, and there is no reason to think his philosophy and core beliefs have changed that much. Changing tactics and image is not the same as changing one's beliefs and values.

Mr. Kurtz and the Forbes columnist make the same mistakes when it comes to Obama's birth certificate. We will not know the circumstances and place of Obama's birth until we see the original or certified copy of his original birth certificate. It should be of concern for two reasons. The constitution requires that any President of the United States has to be a natural born citizen of the United States. And so far,Obama has refused to produce proof of that requirementn nor has he authorized its realease. By the way, a birth certificate from Hawaii which used to be issued to people who weren't actually born in Hawaii would not be sufficient proof.

Hopefully, before qualification for the 2012 Presidential election, State and Federal laws will be in place to require every candidate for President to prove his/her constitutional eligiblilty for the office--with their birth certificate. Who can oppose that?

Finally, on the anti-colonialism thing, Many years ago, Great Britain gave a bust of Winston Churchill to the US which was in the White House--until Barack Obama took office. It was then removed--well before the recent Oval Office makeover. A gesture of--what?

Posted by: rphillips1 | September 17, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama's is a fad just like Hillary was to NY, time to wake up America

Posted by: vinko | September 17, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

rphillips wrote:

"Finally, on the anti-colonialism thing, Many years ago, Great Britain gave a bust of Winston Churchill to the US which was in the White House--until Barack Obama took office. It was then removed--well before the recent Oval Office makeover. A gesture of--what?"

Actually, only 8 years ago and a gesture of respect toward the AMERICAN man whose bust replaced it perhaps . . . Abraham Lincoln a REPUBLICAN of all things!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait to see Gibbs try and make the case that Obama isn't the most anti-business President since Carter.

Posted by: wave41 | September 17, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"And I would have gotten away with it if it had'nt been for those meddling conservatives!"

Posted by: ForestWilson | September 17, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The only fact that was incorrect was that Obama went to Pakistan AFTER he was 17 not before. Because of that the Left spews things like "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

The only thing hateful are the words and actions of Obama and many of his associates like Rev. Wright (his preacher!?!), Bill Ayers, and most of Obama's czars.

Posted by: Mark74 | September 17, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The hotter Liberals get the truer the story is about them. They seem pretty hot at this so it must be true in my book!

Posted by: JoshinFahaheel | September 17, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Look, I've been reading Dinesh D'Souza since I was a teenager. The guy is very smart, and very articulate. He knows what he's talking about.

I have not read the article, but I'm sure whatever his beliefs, they are well founded, and well put. Typical Robert Fibbs to come out and call him a liar.

I'll take Dinesh D'Souza over any one in this Administration any day.

Posted by: SubjectofUSSA | September 17, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Look, let's get to the nitty gritty. It's been apparent ever since Obama got on the scene that he has been on a very different page than most Americans. Now, he can call himself an American, and he can hide behind the race card as he and Gibbs do, but the nuts and the bolts are that Obama doesn't think like a true-blue American who is proud of his country and what this country has accomplished. It's a cultural thing.

His drop in the polls is reflective of an American audience who is growing weary of trying to figure out where this guy is coming from--they shouldn't have to work so hard to be able to identify patriotism.

But they do.

Posted by: dwightfulone | September 17, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

It's clearly George W. Bush's fault!

Posted by: SpiritOf1776 | September 17, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

To those who are intent on describing Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams as "anti-colonialists", a short history lesson is in order. The Revolutionary War was fought for economic reasons. The "Colonials" were happy with the relationship they had with Great Britain for many years - they sold all of their product into one market, and bought all the goods they couldn't produce from that same market.

The issues arose when the British began to tax not only the products the Colonials sold, but also the goods that they bought from British merchants. Taxes had already been paid by the merchants who were shipping goods to the Americas; then suddenly the British government decided that the Colonials should pay taxes on those goods as well. These taxes were levied because the British government was insolvent after fighting innumerable wars against the French.

The Colonial's resistance came about as a result of their being doubly taxed while having no representation in the government that imposed the taxes on them... Sound familiar??

Posted by: breumsyter | September 17, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Methinks Gibbs doth protest too much. But of course the White House is upset because this piece challenges Obama's own so carefully crafted self-narrative.

Posted by: drwilly | September 17, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

well the snake oils salesman has been hit right on the snoz! it is exactly what he is and more - back to the country of his birth with him - Kenyan

Posted by: jackspratt1 | September 17, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

mark74 wrote:

"The only fact that was incorrect was that Obama went to Pakistan AFTER he was 17 not before. Because of that the Left spews things like "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work.""

Sorry, the information about Petrobras was 100% incorrect and not even checked by the author before he wrote the piece. It really doesn't matter though does it? We have reached a place where people can call the president a Muslim communist even though no such a thing has ever existed. Truth is whatever the person who opposes the president says it is.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The man might be born in America but he is the most Anti-American individual I have ever seen,,And it has nothing to do with what people consider his roots ..It has everything to do with his actions since he has been in the White House..

Posted by: AnnJones1 | September 17, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

subjectofussa wrote:

"Look, I've been reading Dinesh D'Souza since I was a teenager. The guy is very smart, and very articulate. He knows what he's talking about.

I have not read the article, but I'm sure whatever his beliefs, they are well founded, and well put"


I think you speak for many of the people on this board who also have not read the article but are satisfied that it is against the president.

Perhaps you also agree with these direct quotes from D'Souza:

- "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."

-"Activists recommend federal jobs programs and recruitment into the private sector. Yet it seems unrealistic, bordering on the surreal, to imagine underclass blacks with their gold chains, limping walk, obscene language, and arsenal of weapons doing nine-to-five jobs at Procter and Gamble or the State Department."

- "[The Civil Rights Movement] sought to undermine white racism through a protest strategy that emphasized the recognition of basic rights for blacks, without considering that racism might be fortified if blacks were unable to exercise their rights effectively and responsibly."

I could go and on but I presume you also favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act as D'Souza does, even though you haven't read it!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

breumsyfer wrote:

The "Colonials" were happy with the relationship they had with Great Britain for many years - they sold all of their product into one market, and bought all the goods they couldn't produce from that same market.

The issues arose when the British began to tax not only the products the Colonials sold, but also the goods that they bought from British merchants. Taxes had already been paid by the merchants who were shipping goods to the Americas; then suddenly the British government decided that the Colonials should pay taxes on those goods as well. These taxes were levied because the British government was insolvent after fighting innumerable wars against the French."

No sorry, this sounds like an attempt to fit modern day "double taxation theory" into a colonial context. There was a very large trade conducted not just with Great Britain but with France, the Carribbean, Africa , and the Netherlands as well. The colonists basically paid no taxes at all, and did a great deal of business by smuggling, especially in New England. They were indeed happy with the relationship before the French and Indian War because they had the best of all possible worlds, their own colonial governments and the protection of British arms at no cost. The attempted imposition of taxes and actual colonial government from Britain is what caused the war.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Sounds about right to me.
Whats the problem.

Posted by: mikeygee1214 | September 17, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Sounds right to me
What's all the fuss.

Posted by: mikeygee1214 | September 17, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama and his staff are all about "controlling the message." It's a propaganda machine on a massive scale, monitoring, and attempting to lean on those "Chicago style" with less than positive things to say about him. His need for a legacy drives him, a narcissist, wanting to be on the dollar bill someday. Obama is really a facade, the results of an American Idol type election year, and way over his head for the job of running a nation. He continues to fill important positions with progressive ideologues instead of professionals, while the nation continues downhill economically. The only thing he can do, is try and protect his all important self-image. The nation made a major mistake, and slowly but surely is realizing it...

Posted by: AZsparrow | September 17, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

"It's a stunning thing, to see a publication you would see in a dentist's office, so lacking in truth and fact," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says in an interview. "I think it represents a new low."

WHERE THE HELL DO YOU GO TO THE DENTIST OFFICE GIBBS? Oh, yeah, that's right, the White House Dentist office. Normally you will see NEWSWEEK, TIME, US NEWS & WORLD REPORT and tons of other Pravda-Left Wing But(t) wipe rags sitting around Dentist or Doctor's office that are filled with nothing else EXCEPT left-wing lies and distortions. What a moron.

As the Dear Leader is wanton to say (or transcribe from his teleprompter), "Let me be clear about this": When a subscription to the WASHINGTON POST, NY TIMES, NEWSWEEK, TIME and US NEWS cost a lot less than Charmin, perhaps I will buy them for azz-wipe; but it will have to cost a LOT less.

Posted by: TWilliamR | September 17, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Innuendo. Hey, gibbs, have you ever listened to one of BO's stump speeches. It's ALL innuendo, even claiming to be a Christian. Just look at his policies and his appointments. He's a coward with all his recess appointments and the latest "havaad law professor" Warren. Another marxist lefty, I'm sure.

Posted by: Boray1 | September 17, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Obama send a bust of Winston Churchill (that's been in the Oval Office since WWII) back to England? Told his staff to get that thing out of here. Send it back to those colonizing whities.
I guess with that said, the article must be spot on.

Posted by: svengally | September 17, 2010 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Can't wait for this clown to be booted from office in 2013.

Posted by: zap123 | September 17, 2010 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Columbia Journalism Review this week called the D'Souza article "a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia" and "the worst kind of smear journalism--a singularly disgusting work."

Please. Apparently this leftist hack missed the 2008 campaign and the smear job of Palin that his corrupt Journolist brethren eagerly participated in.

Posted by: EricArthurBlair | September 17, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Simple nobody in their right mind would think taking money we didn't have trillions and throwing it out there would do anything to stimulate the economy. Business makes jobs that last and produce profits that keep the engine running. Taking taxes and throwing it out is a one shot deal.

So my point is either Obama is one stupid SOB or he is a Marxist, Muslim or whatever you want to call him that wants to destroy us. Even though he is an affirmative action product I don't think he is stupid. A cunning sociopath but not stupid.

Much easier with a media that will cover for him and seem to have a High school crush on him. We are at the precipice. Vote all Democrats out. I think the Republican suck also but we need to split the power to slow down this traitor before he puts us all in the bread lines.

Posted by: harley2002 | September 17, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The level of vitriol coming from the Obama acolytes says everything about the truth of D'Souza's story.

Gibbs continues to reach new lows.

Posted by: Jack64 | September 17, 2010 7:50 PM | Report abuse

People wake up!!!! The experiment failed!!! You cannot teach a monkey to do a humans job...Enough already!!!!

Posted by: rgtex4756 | September 17, 2010 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama's a complete and utter failure

Posted by: rgtex4756 | September 17, 2010 8:05 PM | Report abuse

Columbia Journalism Review is at the forefront of "fact-twisting, error-laden paranoia scribbling". ALL they do is "the worst kind of smear journalism--disgusting work." FACTS are meaningless to a propaganda organ of the Soros, Al Queada, Ajmadinijhad axis of evil. Obama is illegimtimate, a friend of domestic terrorists, bankrupter of America. Columbia Journalism Review is intent to cover up the uncoverable.

Posted by: craigslsst | September 17, 2010 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Wow. All the oinking and grunting from the Democrats! GREAT Forbes article --- everyone should read it! Which, uh, is not what OhBummer had in mind for you to do when Gibbs and the other Attack Poodles on his team started chewing up poor Dinesh. Uh oh. Piggies and Poodles!

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats have this "enemies list" --- denominated in epithets aimed at the people whose wallets they wish to hijack and take up residence inside. You can be a “Racist!” and you can be a “Homophobe!” and you can be a “Teabagger!” --- a homosexual man taking his partner’s scrotum into his mouth. You can be “Selfish!” and you can be a “Hick!” and you can be a “Rube!” You can be a “Right-wing-nut!” and you can be a “Warmonger!” and you can be "Unenlightened!" and you can be a “Fascist!” --- although no one more closely approaches the precise description of “Fascist!” than the usual Demo propagandist --- either official, or self-appointed.

So all you have to do to occupy multiple epithets on the Demos’ enemies list is to insist that they take their hands off yourself, off your wallet, off your property, off your kids, off your diet, off your healthcare, off your household appliances, off your car, off your bank account, off your weapons of self-defense, off your liberty, and off your freedom of speech. Insist on all these good things - and that qualifies you to be spat upon by nasty, mean-spirited scum --- by The Friends of All Mankind --- by a gang of lying, thieving, dope-smoking, coke-snorting, sticky-fingered, bloodsxcking, tax-eating, gun-stealing, predatory humanitarian thugs --- by the Democrat party, in other words. No political party in the history of America more profoundly deserves absolute and outright destruction.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

He dated Ann Coulter? What a great asset on his resume. He just went way up in my esteem. I red his article which is an opinion piece and I noticed the Hawaii part. A small thing compared to the may gaffs of M. Obama and r. gibbs. The article makes reasonable sense , if not the entire reason for his odd ideas.
btw, anti colonialuism today is not what what it used to be. it now means take it away from the developed countries and give it to the undeveloped countries.

Posted by: vade | September 17, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

OhBummer is a boob and a fool for attacking the American Tea Partiers. He is annoyed that they’re not grateful to him for hijacking the American healthcare system --- the greatest act of vandalism perpetrated upon the American people since a gang of jihadi frootloops and loonytoons hijacked some planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, and the Pentagon, and made a failed attempt to crash into the White House and instead drilled a hole in a Pennsylvania farm thanks to some very courageous American passengers.

And --- now widely seen for what he is --- the president presents a problem for the Democrat-captured media. They pump out his propaganda for him --- and, like the opinion monitors in Ayn Rand’s novel, “Atlas Shrugged” --- they are dodging brickbats and rotten vegetables.

He’s pompous, pampered, and pretentious --- a pseudo-intellectual fop. He’s a glorified, smooth-lyin’ dandy, and slicker than Sick Willie Clinton. He’s a dictator-on-the-make, a bloodsxcking, predatory humanitarian thug, and a low-down skunk.

He’s a fraud and a swindler. He lies when he inhales and he lies when he exhales; his oxygen is the falsification of reality. He lies, placidly and laconically, as if deception were a soporific drug.

He’s a friend of the poor and the downtrodden --- indeed, you can hear the milk of human kindness sloshing around inside of him when he walks.

He declares himself the post-racial leader --- “Let me be clear!” he intones --- and he hides behind his race, daring his critics to put their reputation for fairness at risk.

He pauses to ponder the portent of his propaganda --- and it is fakery; he smiles and his mendacity comes shining through. Shake hands with Barak Hushpuppy OhBummer --- “The Mistake of ‘08” --- the illegal alien squatter in the White House --- and America’s first and last Arab president. Now count your fingers.

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

SAM ADAMS IS MORE THAN JUST A GREAT YANKEE BEER!

TAX HATER SAMUEL ADAMS, ON A ROLL AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, AUGUST, 1776……

"You darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives and religion of millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, to prove that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty, industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested from us at the will of men over whom we have no check.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, and supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

“Courage, then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable, the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances?”

“It does not take a majority to prevail….but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

“The Constitution shall never be construed… to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 8:57 PM | Report abuse

What this country needs is a truly LIBERAL president and congress and judiciary! And I forgive the reader for suspecting that this must be some kind of bad joke!

But the Democrats believe in "statism" - not "liberalism."

They benefit from the imprecise American political terminology - we say "the government" here in the USA - rather than "the state." And that's a dangerous problem. Famous brands of statism in recent centuries have been Nazism, socialism, fascism, communism, and welfare statism - this last is sort of a mix of fascism and socialism.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is a political philosophy of small, cheap government - it is a constabulary - and the job of a liberal government is to enforce human rights within its own jurisdiction. I speak of the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights - The Rights of Man - are the gift of nature or of nature's god - and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.

Show me a Democrat who subscribes to all of the above, without qualifications or weasel words. The words "liberal" and "liberalism" were hijacked by the Democrats and socialists and fascists long ago - and it was the mistake of conservatives and libertarians to let them get away with it.

It is long past time that liberalism be reclaimed, defined, and explained by its rightful owners - by the champions of freedom, i.e.: not by Democrats.

Well, how about "progressivism?" Whuzzat?! “Cancer” is “progressive,” too. Isn't “progressivism” just another statist cancer? It chews you up, piece by piece, in the name of Da Peepul? Eat Da Rich? Moral cannibalism, anyone?

Declare yourselves to be "liberals," then - kick over the bloody coffee tables - and overthrow and trounce the Democrats in 2010 and 2012!

Posted by: OsamasPajamas | September 17, 2010 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Ok, just remember no mater what. Free speech is a GOOD thing, Free speech is a GOOD thing, Free Speech is a GOOD thing . . .

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 9:02 PM | Report abuse

MikeS651 posted: "If the shoe fits, where it."

The lack of literacy skills demonstrated here are an example of the kinds of people who will believe anything they read or here that supports their provincial ignorant point of view.

Forbes magazine is by and for the very rich, Obama wants the very rich to pay their share, and the very rich don;t like it, so they hire this hack Dinesh D'Souza to write a dishonest disparaging piece of yellow journalism. I'm sure Forbes will discard Dinesh D'Souza as soon as they're done with him. Poor fool.

MikeS651 do you not see that these people are manipulating you to vote against your own interests? Think, question, don't accept blindly what your masters tell you to think.

It's scary to see what this country is coming to, with the dumbing down and the outrageous propaganda.

Posted by: greeenmtns | September 17, 2010 9:11 PM | Report abuse


MikeS651 posted: "If the shoe fits, where it."

The lack of literacy skills demonstrated here are an example of the kinds of people who will believe anything they read or hear (pardon my typo) that supports their provincial ignorant point of view.

Forbes magazine is by and for the very rich, Obama wants the very rich to pay their share, and the very rich don;t like it, so they hire this hack Dinesh D'Souza to write a dishonest disparaging piece of yellow journalism. I'm sure Forbes will discard Dinesh D'Souza as soon as they're done with him. Poor fool.

MikeS651 do you not see that these people are manipulating you to vote against your own interests? Think, question, don't accept blindly what your masters tell you to think.

It's scary to see what this country is coming to, with the dumbing down and the outrageous propaganda.

Posted by: greeenmtns | September 17, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

OK let me get this straight. Obama can write a book called Dreams of My Father discussing how he was influenced by his father but suggesting Obama was influenced by his father is beyond the pale. In addition, Obama can sit in a church for TWENTY FREAKIN YEARS and not remember what the "reverend" had to say! OK I think we can all agree this makes PERFECT sense, right? What a bunch of idiots these people are. Maybe the Kenyan's book should have been called Wet Dreams of My Father.

Posted by: noah_fing-whey | September 17, 2010 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Yawn. That magazine writers embelish their stories is nothing new. There's been a lot of ink wasted on made-up stories on GOP presidents. What isn't a falsehood is Obama's anti-business outlook. A simple google search (and all the other search engines) on his speeches will easily confirm that. And "words do matter" after all.

Posted by: go_figure77221 | September 17, 2010 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I wish all the Liberals starting with the far left radical ideologue Obama would get facts straight and stop trying revisionist history. Obama did indeed inherit a great economic mess in 2009 but he inherited it from the Pelosi/Reid Democrat majority Congress that had been seated since January 2007. That congress who also ran on the change mantra, sat idylly by while the Housing market collapsed all around it. The Congress is the only entity that can appropriate money and make laws so Bush had very little to do with the collapse, Bush's biggest mistake was that he didn't stick to his own Conservative values and nip the Housing crisis in the Bud in 2003 when the bubble started for that he deserves some blame and his standing with the American people will forever be tarnished but what Obama has done since coming into power with all this hard left agenda and multi trillions in defecit spending is an absolute disaster. The American people reject Marxism, they reject Socialism and want no part of a progressive liberal agenda. Bankrupting the USA is not an option and I hope and pray that come November 2nd all of the Conservatives unite and teach that lesson to this President.

Posted by: Anti-Lliberal | September 17, 2010 10:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm not as concerned with Obama's anti-colonialist beliefs as I am with his Communist ideology.

Posted by: Jack64 | September 17, 2010 10:30 PM | Report abuse

anti-liberal wrote:

"Obama did indeed inherit a great economic mess in 2009 but he inherited it from the Pelosi/Reid Democrat majority Congress that had been seated since January 2007. That congress who also ran on the change mantra, sat idylly by while the Housing market collapsed all around it. The Congress is the only entity that can appropriate money and make laws so Bush had very little to do with the collapse, Bush's biggest mistake was that he didn't stick to his own Conservative values and nip the Housing crisis in the Bud in 2003 when the bubble started for that he deserves some blame"

You really don't have single clue about our current economic crisis and no I'm not saying blame Bush either. The state of financial education in this country is just hideous.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 17, 2010 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Are you people that tout class warfare serious? I know that is a standard Marxist playbook item but come on now, you anti-capitalists that Rail against the rich, oh the rich they need to pay more taxes, ok lets do it lets seriously raise their tax rates I mean like to the 70 percent level, now using logic what exactly happens? The government increases its revenue in the form of taxation to this top 1 percent, but suddenly the money that those earners would have spent in the economy is no longer there so they don't buy their new Yacht, or New RV this year so the Yacht and RV makers stop ordering the widgets and the poor widget maker is now out of a job. Next up the businesses that have to pay higher taxes or higher health care for employees or whatever you liberal socialists burdent them with, start cutting employees thats (JOBS) why because you Liberals fail to understand that the rich are not going to eat the loss, common sense would you eat it? NO so costs of goods and services go up to replace the lost taxed income, less employees so we have higher unemployment. The bottom line is higher taxes on the Rich are always paid for in some form by the not Rich.... and as far as all your anti-caplitalist regulatory items, haven't you ever figured that one out, the govt raises taxes and claims the revenue is needed to police the reforms and regulations that govt has put on business/banks etc, the business, etc, pass these costs on to the consumers so we pay, get it? WE PAY!!!! WE ALL PAY !!!

Posted by: Anti-Lliberal | September 17, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Next up for you Liberal Big government types, you all think that government is the answer, but government is the oppressor. Look none of you like Sarah Palin, you think she is a nut case on a mission to solve all of America's Social ills, OK. So imagine this scenario.

Obama gets you your Healthcare Reform utopia everyone covered under a single payer medicare for all type system run by the govt.... yeah... Now for some reason or another the fickle public elects Sarah Palin as President, you idiots just gave her all the power to control your healthcare decisions.... So what if she decides that since condoms and other Birth Control measures are issued by the govt health plan to everyone so therefore pregnancy is obviously a mutually decided function because otherwise a woman that got pregnant and wanted an abortion would be a non-compliant patient because she failed to use Birth Control therefore a simple executive order outlawing anytype of abortion for this woman under the govt controlled health care... oh and hey all you fat people that are addicted to sugar which is causing your diabetes and the doctor told you not to eat it but you continue to do so, you non-compliant types cannot keep expecting the public to pour money out treating you do you ? and now don't get me started on STD's but you get the picture.

Posted by: Anti-Lliberal | September 17, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

You can't deny that Obama despises this country and that he wasn't raised in the continental US. He spent his formative years overseas. He sees the US exactly the way an Indonesian or Kenyan would see the country. He didn't grow up celebrating the 4th of July, or revering the founders. He has openly disparaged the Constitution for it's limitation of government power. The man is not a traditional US president. He comes at it from very far left. We have an overt Marxist in the WH.

Posted by: rho1953 | September 17, 2010 11:42 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for this book to come out. I am buying every book I can get my hands on so my grand kids will know the truth. I will set it with "Dreams of my Father" so they can look up everything D'Souza has to say so they will see it is true. The Obamas may think they can rewrite history but the truth will come out sooner or later. Obama hates this country. He was born under British rule and hates them too.

Posted by: elda1111 | September 17, 2010 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Heaven forbid a real journalist should engage in actual journalism. The fool knows he should only report on the press releases approved by the Obama White House.

Posted by: astralweeks | September 17, 2010 11:46 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza must have hit pretty close to home, as witnessed by the blowback from the Obozo cheerleader nation.

Posted by: Jack64 | September 18, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

D'Souza is not always spot on, but he was this time. Think about it: why would the *President of the US* go around apologizing for the country and his predecessors even half as much as Obama does? Obama's got a far-left, anti-Western, anti-colonial mindset, it sure seems...

Posted by: fraudbust2011 | September 18, 2010 1:21 AM | Report abuse

This was an excellent article. The only problem Howard has is how much it defines his "dear leader".

Posted by: Kansasgirl | September 18, 2010 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Obama needs to get some skin protection. As hit pieces go this is nothing. His immaturity has haunted his presidency and his attacks on anyone that criticizes him are very unpresidential.

It all started with Maureen Dowd getting booted from his campaign plane because she wrote a snarky comment about his big ears.

Our President is very childish

Posted by: iam7545 | September 18, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

In my earlier comment, when I stated "this was an excellent article", I was referring to D'Souza's article, not Howard's.

Posted by: Kansasgirl | September 18, 2010 1:55 AM | Report abuse

picking the nits doesn't make the overarching truth, false. Based on Obama's mother's and grandmothers view of the world it is easy to see that his father's views were just passed on by mom. Saying Hawaii is off the continental US but shares mainstream views may be right but has little to do in refuting the statement that Obama spent his first 17 years off the mainland. We in the hinterland call the White House and Post article ad hominem, defensive and vindictive. The exact "meatheaded" argument one would expect.

Posted by: busseja | September 18, 2010 2:24 AM | Report abuse

Frankly, I think Dinesh D'Souza just nails it. This explains why Obama always seems to have a certain reluctance toward his own country; why he seems to prefer "citizen of the world" and seems so anti-american. I cannot wait until Obama leaves office. He is a president that does not make americans feel safe. D'Souza's article explains why.

Posted by: msackman22 | September 18, 2010 4:55 AM | Report abuse

To all you Obama supports who just don't understand why the oppositions can make numerous allegations about Obama an get any traction? Because for the first time in my life we have a President that most people know little about. Sure we know the slogans, the myth, the TelePrompTer speaker. We really don't know what distination he is taking us towards? What's his motivations? What's the over-arching game plan to here? Everytime people ask these types of questions that get called names like racist and right-winger, teabager! This attack mode only fuels the speculation.

Posted by: kdlebeouf | September 18, 2010 5:08 AM | Report abuse

The independents have realized they were duped by candidate Obama and have left the building. That we have a self described mongrel cur kenneled in the WH, when he and his partner are not on field trips at our expense, until the next election is a miserable reality.

Posted by: brian11 | September 18, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

Greenmnts you are projecting your enslavement to your masters as all liberals do. They claim others are racist because they are racist. The top one percent pay 40% of taxes. Have you not heard of killing the golden goose? The Beatles wrote "Tax Man" when they first became successful. Regan doubled government intake when he cut taxes, as did Kennedy. Wake up zombie man!

Posted by: brian11 | September 18, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

The emperor has no clothes. Even with the undying, non-critical support of the entire media, the useless dictator comes off as a twit. As a business hating, racist, self-centered narcissist, Mr. Obama demonstrates daily his incompetence, lack of caring, disgust for our nation, and support of Marxism, Islamic Radicals, Terrorists, and the Elite. As a professed "nice guy liberal" fascist, he continues to destroy our liberty through assaults on the Constitution, surrounded by leftist anarchist ideologues who were formerly violent anti-American academics. When someone in the media begins to speak the truth, the dictator's "machine" goes into full swing to defend his illegal and dangerous regime. It is much like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and the other great national socialist that Obama admires: Adolph Hitler. Time for the true citizens of this nation to come together against "all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC".

Posted by: DrBob3 | September 18, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

LBJ had the war on poverty.

OBAMA has "THE WAR ON PROSPERITY".

Poverty, unemployment, welfare, food stamps are all on the rise. Thank You President Barack Hussien Obama.

Posted by: AverageAmericanMichelle | September 18, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

LBJ had the war on poverty.

OBAMA has "THE WAR ON PROSPERITY".

Poverty, unemployment, welfare, food stamps are all on the rise. Thank You President Barack Hussien Obama.

Posted by: AverageAmericanMichelle | September 18, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

Simple Mr. President... Tell us how you think. Piecing together your actions to date does not paint a clear picture of your core values - leading to these sorts of stories. At the risk of revealing weaknesses you must come forward and articulate what does move you. If you don't the media will as is their role in our society.

Posted by: Stelly | September 18, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

LBJ had the war on poverty.

OBAMA has "THE WAR ON PROSPERITY".

Poverty, unemployment, welfare, food stamps are all on the rise. Thank You President Barack Hussien Obama.

Posted by: AverageAmericanMichelle | September 18, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I just read greenmtn's comment about the rich not paying their share. Hmmmm The top 3% pay 50% of the total tax and provide 40% of the jobs. The next 47% pay the remaining 50% of tax income and provide the remaining 60% of the jobs. The bottom 50% pay no tax and provide nothing. What is their share??? A land of losers is what the Obama wants, just like every failed country. His motto seems to be tax success and encourage failure. hence more government workers (produce nothing but heat). Get a life and produce something, greenmtn. You must be a loser to think like that, green with envy.

Posted by: busseja | September 18, 2010 8:27 AM | Report abuse

Let Mario Apuzzo, Esq. present his case to the courts to show that Obama could have never been considered to be a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be president. Instead Obama, the DOJ, and courts have prevented his case now on appeal to go forward so justice prevails. Obama was using his campaign war chest of donated $ to pay for his defense but now uses our taxpayer $ by having the DOJ represent him versus us.

Posted by: an761 | September 18, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

0buma is against this, 0buma is against that, and this and that and this and that. 0buma is against everything and everyone that isnt black, or kenyan or muslim or marxist. 0buma is anti american, 0buma is anti capitalism, 0buma is against GOD, 0buma is against the constitution, 0buma is against the Declaration of Independence. 0buma is against you, and me and anyone who is Christian or is NOT muslim. 0bumas front men who are carbon copies of him are also against anything that represents our laws, language, culture or traditions. 0bama is from hell.

Posted by: blackpitbull | September 18, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

1. Columbia University is the singularly disgusting institution full of deceipt.
2. Many children abandoned or abused by one or both of their parents long for their approval well into their adult lives, and sometimes their entire lives. Ones focus in life often becomes who we are and his focus is understanding his father - HELLO - he wrote a BOOK about it.
3. How is this loose and speculative stuff any different than portraying George W. as some spoiled kid even after he was established in the white house. Or how about attributing all of George W.'s motivation to helping big oil because of his previous association with it.
4. I don't buy into the premise of this article either, but what IS REAL is the white house response to it which is whiney and un-presidential. Is anyone in the white house crafting a PR strategy or are they really just reacting emotionally to each article an comment like a group of 14 year old school girls? I have a large family of 50+ multi-generational, and demographics, and most of them are Democrats. To a person, they are sick of the whining from the white house and are truly unimpresssed.

Posted by: nnizy | September 18, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Hey liars! Let's get this straight - the greatest economic gift ever squandered was the end of the cold war which was most fully inherited by Bill Clinton - He used this windfall to increase the role of government while maintaining a reasonable deficit. HE COULD OF AND SHOULD HAVE DRIVEN THE DEFICIT INTO THE GROUND AND POSITIONED THE USA AS A POWERHOUSE FOR THE FOLLOWING CENTURY - WHAT A WASTE AND WHAT A LIE TO TROT OUT HIS DEFICIT FIGURES LIKE THEY WERE SOME GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT. IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DID ACHIEVE BUT WHATYOU SHOULD HAVE ACHIEVED BASED UPON THE ASSETS GIVEN.

Posted by: nnizy | September 18, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Psychologists tell us that children abandoned by their parents yearn for a connection to them forever, often trying to be or act in a way that draws the parent(s) back to them. Unless one wants to toss aside that traditional analysis, it is completely consistent to believe Obama has, and still does, try to fulfill the dreams of his father which, in some visceral way, are his own. His father was Kenyan, socialist and anti-colonial.

De Souza's speculations have a ring of truth, no matter how mad it makes Obama's apologists.

Posted by: persugram | September 18, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Kurtz and his peers failed us in the last election. The American press has been overtaken by biased incompetent followers, unqualified to be called the 'free press'. We will not trust them again.

Obama is driven by an extreme dislike of American history...or he is incompetent. He won't happen again either.

If you are to trust opinions, chose Newt over Columbia or Mr. Kurtz any day.

Posted by: Phocus | September 18, 2010 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Everyone leaves out another very important aspect of what shaped Obama, other than his absentee father. His mother. She was not some shy lady taken in with the charms of Obama, Sr. She was an activist, made her own decisions and her political views were shaped by her father.

With the legacy of an anti-colonialist father, an activist mother who shared the same views, plus living many years in Muslim Indonesia, then moving to Hawaii to live with a liberal grandfather, the author hit the nail on the head.

The mistake everyone is making is singling out his biological father and leaving the rest of his family out of the picture. If anyone has read his book, he sought out influences that were radical, and mostly, anti-American.

Why is this a surprise to anyone?

Posted by: Peddler2 | September 18, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

D'Souza's theories seem reasonable. He is trying to make sense of a man with a known unusual history and with so much of the rest hidden at great effort and expense. One wonders why Mr. Obama is so guardedly opaque.

Posted by: masonjahr | September 18, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

For everyone on here spouting rhetoric about Marxism and socialim etc., you really don't understand a thing about financial matters and banking, If you want to find out what REALLY exploded the economy, go look up the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, and the CFMA act. PLEASE don't take my word for anything. Do your own reasearch.

Then do some research on ex-Senator Phil Gramm and his wife Wendy the former head of the CFTC. You might be surprised by what you find, especially since they are some of the primary actors in the Enron debacle, of course never charged.

Until you do that, you are like the guy in the top row of the stadium without binoculars trying to comment on how the umpire isn't doing a good job calling balls and strikes!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 18, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

One more thing. For all of you folks that think the President is a marxist or socialist, remember, the President went to two Ivy League schools. The Ivy League doesn't produce leftists, its produces CAPITALISTS!

The publisher of the magazine in question Steve Forbes went to an Ivy League school as did the two greatest capitalists of the the post war years, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Bill Clinton, both George Bush's, Tim Geithner, Hillary Clinton, Hank Paulson, all went to Ivy League schools. Are you sensing a pattern here, like maybe it doesn't matter which party you belong to as long as you're an insider?

Are any of you so lost in what Christine O'Donnell says that God deosn't want you to do, that you seriously believe that the rich and powerful of this nation would send their money and their children to places that would turn them into Marxists??????? How can you be so pathetically uninformed?

If you were to go down a list of American billionaires you would find that almost every one has a personal connection to the Ivy League or Stanford, the West Coast Ivy League school.

D'Souza used to be the radical conservative boy wonder, but his star was eclipsed by even more radical people like Glenn Beck. This article and the book behind it, is an attempt to reclaim his thunder on the right.

Before you call the President a communist even one more time, just realize that Obama and the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, can throw their arms around each other shoulders and sing the Columbia University fight song from memory

Posted by: 54465446 | September 18, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Sutter (and Howie Kurtz)
... some facts for both of YOU.

-Alaska and Hawaii have been US States since 1959.

-Obama was born in 1961.

-The closest point between the US and Russia is appoximately 56 miles (90 Kilometers).

-Alaska is not Sarah Palin's.

Seek knowledge to avoid foolish misrepresentations.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | September 18, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

How many of you would attend for 20years, as Barack Obama did, the church of a minister who said: "the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism?"

Rev. Wright also said:"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Barack Obama was so impressed with Rev Wright that Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

REF: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1

Barack Obama also said of Wright:: "He is a wonderful pastor." [...] "Rev. Wright represents the best of what the black church has to offer."
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/42496/

How many of you believe that Barack Obama was not influenced by Rev Wright, after listening to Rev Wright's 'Inflammatory Anti-American Rhetoric' for 20 years?

President Obama's actions show me that he has been greatly influenced by Wright, Bill Ayers, and many others in Obama's life who believe this country has done more harm than good, and MUST PAY FOR IT'S SINS.

Posted by: johngilhp | September 18, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Obama has done nothing but create turmoil since becoming President. His whole goal is to destroy our country and rebuild it according to "Dreams From My Father". He has been relentless in pursuing his agenda and, unfortunately, the worst is yet to come.

Posted by: adm454 | September 18, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

It's wonderful that the Columbia School of Journalism types hate this story. Out here in CA we have seen the daily lies and deceit propagated daily in our papers and our TV fake 'news' programs whose main job as they see it is to propagandize the people, very like Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

So, Gibbs, the WH, Congressional Democrats and the Columbia School of Journalism all share the same outrage at the Truth being told.

Posted by: Miguel3 | September 18, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I see the left is still enraged over this article, despite Howard The Honest Broker's attempts to quell the comrades. And I hear there are many more books about President ME working their way to the public. Maybe another dozen New York Times Best Sellers. NYT will have to change their methodology for what makes a best seller.

Posted by: wwyni | September 18, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it? It is amazing on how Europe likes Obama more than we do and after reading the following from Dick Morris, it makes sense. European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/the-nobel-prize-to-obama-europes-bid-to-re-colonize-america/

Posted by: nskipper | September 18, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

This response from a White House that has NO familiarity with truth or fact checking. Obama is a liar. He lied when he was campaigning and he lies everyday. Every time he opens his mouth. CHECK THOSE FACTS and you will see that it is true. Even if you voted for him you must admit that he lied to you and you elected a liar. History will show that this individual will have done more harm than any that came before him to this great country of ours. He IS the Manchurian President. Dont forget that he in fact stated that his goal was to FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE AMERICA. Our fundamentals are fine. Our constitution is the greatest effort at true freedom ever conceived. If those of you who voted for this man believe that he is doing the right thing then you and he should all go somewhere else and set up your own country with your own constitution and leave our country and our constitution alone. To appropriate a quote for which I cannot give credit-"I will keep MY money, MY guns and MY FREEDOM. YOU can keep the CHANGE.

Posted by: twhiteiii | September 18, 2010 2:33 PM | Report abuse

What an outrage. It is so obvious that Obama is a colonialist. He is a true believer in Pax Americana. By Jingo, Obama is even more of a colonialist than his predecessor - George W. Bush.

What could be greater than be a world policeman? The American Empire shall triumph against all "bad" foreign leaders and all human rights violations.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more."

JFK - January 20, 1961

Posted by: alance | September 18, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I just love the posters on here that believe that original “tea party” was strictly an anti-colonial act. It was the act of a British colony tired of being under-represented, under-appreciated and over-taxed. Although I have drastically over-simplified the issue, attempting to link the causes of the Revolutionary War to anti-colonial sentiment is just a naïve statement.

Posted by: oldsalt31 | September 18, 2010 3:17 PM | Report abuse

None of Obama's shrinking army of defenders is even trying to defend the fact that he and his administration have become nothing more than broken promises and lies. And the more they lie, the more one realizes the 'promises' were probably lies, too. And leave it to the WaPo and Kurtz to try and build a defense around Obama. All the more reason to get invited to his fancy parties.

Posted by: wwyni | September 18, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

I must admit that I have not read all the comments here; but I must encourage all readers to investigate Obama's maternal GRANDFATHER, who raised him, to find the greatest influence on his moral, religious, and political thinking.

This does not exculpate the president. His grandfather was a far-left (probably socialist, maybe communist) zealot. Yes, he served in WWII as did virtually every able bodied male of his age, but he was FAR FROM A PATRIOT.

The WH - and most of the media - do not want the facts of his upbringing nor of his personal history brought under close scrutiny. Apparently it is fair and balanced to scrutinize the education and the history of the lady running for Senate in Delaware, but it is patently unfair to scrutinize - and you dare NOT criticize - the poseur in the WH.

My guess is that the Forbes article strikes too close to home. Baghdad Bob Gibbs, who can only deflect and never illuminate, drank the kool aid long ago. Spare me his blathering. We are not all idiots like he.

Posted by: lexterrae | September 18, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

oldsalt wrote:

"I just love the posters on here that believe that original “tea party” was strictly an anti-colonial act. It was the act of a British colony tired of being under-represented, under-appreciated and over-taxed. Although I have drastically over-simplified the issue, attempting to link the causes of the Revolutionary War to anti-colonial sentiment is just a naïve statement."

Right, when a colony rebels on the mother country it's quite obviously a pro-colonial act as anyone can see! I'm glad you didn't include any facts because you certainly would have gotten them wrong.

You might start however by trying to convolute the Monroe Doctrine into a pro-colonial document. This should be good.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 18, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

This column purports to correct the Forbes article, but doesn't show anything wrong.

Posted by: charliemarlow | September 18, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

In less than two years, Obama has lost our respect, our trust and his credibility.

Posted by: x32792 | September 18, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

nskipper wrote:

"I guess the truth hurts, doesn't it? It is amazing on how Europe likes Obama more than we do and after reading the following from Dick Morris, it makes sense. European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States.

You are so incredibly naive! We're all socialists. That's why we have Social Security and Medicare. By your definition the whole world is socialist, every single nation.

You think Obama is different, an aberration. He's not, he's a member of the club and you and I aren't! Funny, everyobdy talks about the billions in debt that we've piled up. Where did it go? Did it go to communist marxist causes? Did we found Marx-Lenin University in Chicago? Is Saul Alinsky now a billionaire?

The money went to the people in the club, the bankers, the financiers, the big pharma companies, the big construction companies, etc. You and I didn't see a dollar in TARP money or stimulus money, but all the people who already had money did?

You're all being led around by the nose and can't see it, this preposterous idea that Obama is against business. He just got admitted to the club. The last thing in the world he wants to do is tear it down!

Haven't all you Glenn Beck watchers on here ever had one moment when the light bulb went on and asked why is the richest man in the world a friend of the communist president?

For all of you folks that think the President is a marxist or communist the President went to two Ivy League schools. The Ivy League doesn't produce leftists, its produces CAPITALISTS!

Steve Forbes who published the article against Obama went to an Ivy League school as did the two greatest capitalists of the the post war years, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. You can add in Bill and Hillary Clinton, both Presidents Bush, Hank Paulson, Tim Geithner, Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. Are you starting to sense that it doesn't even matter which party you belong to, you're either in the club or you're out.

Do you seriously believe that the rich and powerful of this nation would send their money and their children to places that would turn them into Marxists? How can you be so pathetically uninformed?

If you were to go down a list of American billionaires you would find that almost every one has a personal connection to the Ivy League or Stanford, the West Coast Ivy League school.

Before you call the President a communist just realize that Obama, the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, former head of the Fed Alan Greenspan, Robson Walton chairman of Walmart, Randolph Lerner billionaire owner of the Cleveland Browns, Vikram Pandit CEO of Citigroup, Henry Kravis chairman of KKR can sing the Columbia University fight song from memory, while laughing at the rest of us.

You know why Dick Morris (Columbia '67) is mad? He got kicked out of the club for using prostitutes! Apparently that sort of thing just isn't done! He's been trying for revenge ever since!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 18, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz misses the point on the underlying dihonesty of D'Souza's anecdote about the Export-Import Bank's loan to the Brazilian oil industry. It's irrelevant that the loan was not directed at bringing Brazillian oil to the U.S., just as it would be irrelevant that a loan to a foreign auto industry would not be directed at bringing foreign-built cars to the US.

The loans - there are more than one, which are privately funded and repaid with interest - are ONLY for the procurement of American goods and services by the Brazillian oil industry.

http://www.exim.gov/brazil/pressrelease_082009.cfm

Quite a different story, isn't it?

Posted by: zuzu2 | September 18, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Did Gibbs ever consider himself to be out on the fringe. This geek is a complete moron. He is the butt of a million jokes. He has taken the job of press secretary to the absolute gutter.

Posted by: rchaa27aa | September 18, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse


Is D'Souza the same guy who had a Washington Times columnist fired by misrepresenting what the columnist said?

Posted by: boniface9491 | September 18, 2010 10:06 PM | Report abuse


Is D'Souza the same guy who had a Washington Times columnist fired by misrepresenting what the columnist said?

Posted by: boniface9491 | September 18, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I always learned to "never judge a book by its cover" yet I see dozens of comments judging the book by a third party review of that book. Indeed, this isn't even a book review, but a critique of the White Houses attacks on the book. The author of this piece also uses a common fallacy, Guilt by Association, by linking Newt Gingrich's comments on the book to the book itself. Not to mention the Appeal to Authority fallacy in quoting the left wing Columbia Journalism Review as if it was some sort of definitive authority. (the chairman of the CJR is Victor Navasky, forumer editor and publisher of The Nation. The author also cherry picks some points in the book that could be questionable, including an error the author admits to, a red herring. Just once, I'd like to see some of the "intelligentsia" discuss an issue without having to resort to fallacies and innuendo.

Posted by: rdamurphy | September 19, 2010 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I always learned to "never judge a book by its cover" yet I see dozens of comments judging the book by a third party review of that book. Indeed, this isn't even a book review, but a critique of the White Houses attacks on the book. The author of this piece also uses a common fallacy, Guilt by Association, by linking Newt Gingrich's comments on the book to the book itself. Not to mention the Appeal to Authority fallacy in quoting the left wing Columbia Journalism Review as if it was some sort of definitive authority. (the chairman of the CJR is Victor Navasky, forumer editor and publisher of The Nation. The author also cherry picks some points in the book that could be questionable, including an error the author admits to, a red herring. Just once, I'd like to see some of the "intelligentsia" discuss an issue without having to resort to fallacies and innuendo.

Posted by: rdamurphy | September 19, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

I learned early to "never judge a book by it's cover" yet I see dozens of comments judging the book by a third party review of that book. Indeed, this isn't even a book review, but a critique of the White Houses attacks on the book. The author of this piece also uses a common fallacy, Guilt by Association, by linking Newt Gingrich's comments on the book to the book itself. Not to mention the Appeal to Authority fallacy in quoting the left wing Columbia Journalism Review as if it was some sort of definitive authority. (the chairman of the CJR is Victor Navasky, forumer editor and publisher of The Nation. The author also cherry picks some points in the book that could be questionable, including an error the author admits to, a red herring. Just once, I'd like to see some of the "intelligentsia" discuss an issue without having to resort to fallacies and innuendo.

Posted by: rdamurphy | September 19, 2010 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Many commenters here have argued that Obama couldn't have been influenced by his father, who abandoned the family when his son was 2. Have any of these people noted that Obama wrote a book called "Dreams from my FATHER"? The future Pres. spent a lot of time traveling and researching his father's views and those of the Kenyan people. The anti-colonial leanings he (the Pres.) exhibits are those he concluded his father PROBABLY would have had, and the ones still held strongly by his countrymen. Go read the book, folks.

I also have to admit that I'm enjoying the backflips and gyrations Press Sect. Gibson is doing trying to deflate this story. It's just a recitation of facts, followed by the author's opinions. Obama's supporters are simply blinding themselves to the truth.

Posted by: FearlessBystander | September 19, 2010 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Gibbs...the lady doth protest too much...me thinks.

Posted by: mstarvin2003 | September 19, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

54465446 wrote: “information about Petrobras was 100% incorrect and not even checked by the author before he wrote the piece”. You say this but don’t back up your allegation with any factual information. Most Americans are upset that the Obama Administration is against oil drilling in the US but does nothing to stop the US controlled and financed Export-Import Bank from providing $2,000,000,000 in load guarantees for Brazil. Loan guarantees for Brazil?!?

54465446 wrote: “people can call the president a Muslim communist even though no such a thing has ever existed”. Did you even read D’Souza’s article? The whole point of D'Souza’s article is that Obama isn’t a Muslim communist. D’Sousa’s theory that Obama is a 3rd world loving, anti-American, anti-western world, colonialist.

Posted by: Mark74 | September 19, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Ha, ha, ha...

Where exactly were the WaPo and the Columbia Journalism Review when all the smear articles popped up across all the (dying) liberal publications about Sarah Palin?

The hypocrisy of the elitest, liberal media never ceases to amaze... no wonder why they're dying...

Posted by: 1hughjass | September 19, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

I love the fact that this WH has sunk so low as to attack John Boehner for his 'tan'....

And it was the Gibb's attack dog that did it....

Yeah, that's right, a pasty, pudgy, speckled dweeb who only gets exercise when he runs to the front door of the WH in the morning to get first pick when the Krispy Kremes are delivered....

At least when Bush was in we had a hot press secretary like Dana Perino... now we're stuck w/ the geek who sat alone in the cafeteria at lunch throughout his high school years...

Posted by: 1hughjass | September 19, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

I understood the thrust of the story to be more about D'Souza's theory on why Obama is doing what he is doing. I can easily see a young boy fantasizing about how great his father is/was and taking what others have told him about his father and using that to build this image against which he measures his own greatness. I've completely read the piece and found it helped explain many things which made no sense at all, among things explained is why so many who supported him are now silent, no longer voice their support and in many cases dumbfounded. It appears they totally misunderstood Obama and are embarrassed at their own naivete...and gullibility.

Posted by: fredpierce | September 19, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Oh, how the truth hurts!

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Wes69 | September 19, 2010 9:08 AM | Report abuse

It isn't that Obama has the POTENTIAL to become a dictator, or even that he WANTS to become one, but that HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING HIMSELF ONE.

Posted by: Sandra2012 | September 19, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Apparently the dummycrats think their birthright is to say anything they want about the GOP, et al, but how DARE anyone in the MSM break ranks to say anything "inconvenient" about dummycrats.

Hey Howie, what happened to Newsweek?

Posted by: DickTuck | September 19, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

And it is NEVER "HATE" when the leftys trash Governor Palin and her family from one end of the country to the other, it's "what we have to do to win".

Left wing haters, we are ON to ya.

Posted by: DickTuck | September 19, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Some of you are really rather dim. I generally don't think too highly of "psychological theory" either, but if you read any biography, you will typically find some psychological analysis that attempts to understand the driving force for action. Read any Hitler biography, for example. So this isn't atypical, just potential psycho-babble.

But where so many of you indicate your simple-mindedness is when you chime in "I'm anti-colonial" and "George Washington was anti-colonial" and "what's wrong with being anti-colonial". That's not the point. The point is that colonialism implies a whole range of notions. For instance, colonialism implies a projection of power. Is this bad? The ignorant among you will undoubtedly say yes, but the reality is that stability is achieved through the projection of power. Would South Korea be nearly as successful and stable if the US hadn't projected influence in the Far East for the last five decades? Probably not, and there's many examples for this, including the Middle East. And this is D'Souza's primary contention: that Obama is more interested in diminishing the influence of the US globally, then assuring that we look after our own interests. And let's be clear: projecting power is not colonialism, but colonialism does include projecting power. There's a difference. Do you morons understand yet or is this too complicated for you?

I really don't expect liberals to understand: I've almost completely convinced myself that liberals must be the least evolved of the humans, having a lesser developed prefrontal cortex.

Posted by: __tlewis__ | September 19, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Who cares WHY Obama is a Marxist who hates America? He obviously does, so now we have to put up with him for two more years. This country's only chance to survive in prosperity and some measure of liberty is to blockade his destruction with at least one house of congress. Obama is a master of the big lies....he tells them every day. ...like....Obamacare will save us money. Yeah, right.

Posted by: betspotter | September 19, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

Who cares WHY Obama is a Marxist who hates America? He obviously does, so now we have to put up with him for two more years. This country's only chance to survive in prosperity and some measure of liberty is to blockade his destruction with at least one house of congress. Obama is a master of the big lies....he tells them every day. ...like....Obamacare will save us money. Yeah, right.

Posted by: betspotter | September 19, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

With very slight changes, one can apply Gibbs' own words to accurately describe this president: "It's a stunning thing, to see a [president] you would see in [the Oval Office], so lacking in truth and fact, . . . "I think it represents a new low."


And the American people may also apply Gibbs' own words to the "mainstream" stenographers who refused to vet Obama before the 2008 election and who promote Obama's untenable policies, "Did they not fact-check this at all, or did they fact-check it and just willfully ignore it?" he asks.

Posted by: chukker | September 19, 2010 12:00 PM | Report abuse

t lewis wrote:

"For instance, colonialism implies a projection of power. Is this bad? The ignorant among you will undoubtedly say yes, but the reality is that stability is achieved through the projection of power."

Nice of you to put up a straw man and then knock it down. Projection of power is not the least bit was was discussed in the article. Have you never heard of the Monroe Doctrine, or the Opne Door Policy? Do you not know why Cuba is independent today and not the 51st state? Your high school history teachers would weep at what you neverlearned in their classes!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

mark74 wroet:

"54465446 wrote: “information about Petrobras was 100% incorrect and not even checked by the author before he wrote the piece”. You say this but don’t back up your allegation with any factual information. Most Americans are upset that the Obama Administration is against oil drilling in the US but does nothing to stop the US controlled and financed Export-Import Bank from providing $2,000,000,000 in load guarantees for Brazil. Loan guarantees for Brazil?!?"

Sigh, even though it has been said over and over again, the IE Bank makes loans and loan guarantees to finance the purchase of ANMERICAN goods, not oil drilling in Brazil. The ONLY thing that the money can be used for is to purchase AMERICAN made drilling equipment, nothing else. The loan process was begun during the Bush presidency under it's current all Bush appointed board of directors.

The President is NOT against oil drilling, BUT he took a real beating in the press over BP. So he took what he considered defensive measures to avoid being blamed for the next Gulf spill, as he no doubt will be. It was a knee jerk reaction and not very effective from an administration that apparently has become obsessed with what Fox News is going to say about it!

Finally you are correct that D'Souza is not anti-Muslim, at least not until it becomes expedient for him to be. I did not say that HE was but was referring to the numerous posters on this and other threads who do make that charge.

Mark, you're usually not one of the crazy ones. Why not do alittle of your own reasearch?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Finally, before kickoff, the United States, for most of our history, has been a rabidly anti-colonial nation. You would not realize this from D'Souza's article because his personal history is an obsession with colonialism and it's effects. I found the article to be pyscho babble and incorrect on some of the facts, but not harmful or threatening in any way. Gibbs does damage to the President just by standing in front of the podium each day.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz and the Left try to downplay the influence on Obama by his father by saying he never really knew him. But would it not be surprising if he hadn’t extensively studied the political beliefs of his very political father?

Posted by: lowonprozac | September 19, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

This White House is the most thin-skinned group I have ever heard of. Why is Gibbs meeting with Forbes? To intimidate, I guess. They will have the IRS after Forbes next. If they just ignored most of the comments that are made about Barry there would be less attention drawn to their inabilities to govern. If the Bush WH had run around meeting with all who wrote bad commentary about him they would never had time to govern. Maybe this is the Obama administration's problem.

Posted by: curious3 | September 19, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Let me get this straight.... you publish an article in a magazine or a newspaper and the editor of the journal gets summoned to the White House to explain himself? Where is that guardian of our 1st amendment rights, the ACLU?

Can you imagine the outrage if President Bush had done that?

Posted by: JimAroo | September 19, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

Nice try. Your high school teachers are very proud of you; unfortunately, your college professors are not. I think you have entirely missed the point, but I'll answer your points directly.

The Monroe Doctrine was a statement made by President Monroe to limit the influence of European powers in the Western Hemisphere. You obviously attribute his motivation to an anti-colonialism based on our own history with European powers. Not likely, if you understand world history. It was to stem the influence of Europe (or really any intruding power) in the Western Hemisphere for our own protection and interests. Period. And you can definitely see that this was the result over the last 200 years, during which the US became the dominant force throughout the Western Hemisphere. So it actually achieved one component of colonialization: a projection of power within a region, yet without physical occupation. The opposite of what you assert.

The Open Door Policy was again another policy that implicitly indicated our lack of influence in China. We basically told all the powers that did have influence within that sphere (one aspect of colonialism) that they couldn't appropriate Chinese territory, specifically ports, for themselves. Again, this was not a magnanimous opposition to colonialism, but an effort to protect our own interests in China (specifically, trading). I think you have a very naive view of history if you assumed that our opposition was truly about anti-colonialism.

And finally Cuba. I consider it a mistake to not have annexed Cuba when we first had the chance. That's just my opinion, but it's largely based on this history that resulted, and I'm including pre-Castro Cuba.

So that's that. The worlds not a simple place -- I don't fault the US for trying to assert itself in the world. But any nation must be careful how it does this because it can have disastrous consequences. Some of our involvement in South America should make this clear. But the Monroe Doctrine and the Open Door Policy were certainly not motivated by anti-colonialism; that's just a simplistic high school (maybe middle school) notion.

Now to the main point. I interpret D'Souza's argument as Obama's opposition not to colonialism, but to characteristics of colonialism. Obama's father may have been anti-colonial, but Obama has no reason to be, but he can still oppose characteristics that are colonial. And this includes the US projecting its influence (see the Monroe Doctrine specifically) and its culture globally. I agree with him in this. Obama and Ron Paul want to diminish our influence in the world. I think it may be a good idea in some regions and bad in others, but it's complicated. I'm not sure Obama understands this -- he just thinks that if US influence decreases, then no one will hate us and the world will be a grand ole' place, where we all unite in love and peace. To which I reply, "Grow up."

Posted by: __tlewis__ | September 19, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

There are two groups of criticism to the D'Souza article:

(1) It's obviously ridiculous

(2) It's charge is anti-colonialism, and America was founded on it.

Its worth mentioning that these two critiques are opposed to each other. The first does not take D'Souza's general thesis into account but instead attacks factual inaccuracies...which tends to be inevitable in any body of work. The second is not so much wrong as it is perhaps outdated.

(1) I personally was very curious as to some of Obama's choices....sending the bust of Churchill back for example seemed to be against our best diplomatic interests. This of course was followed by other seeming slights to British officials including the lack of thought that went into state presents. These were newsworthy items, are well documented, and are perplexing. They do not prove D'Souza's argument but do succeed in making his hypothesis compelling. On sending the bust of Churchill back, Obama had reputedly stated words to the effect that Britain is only one of many countries and should not expect special treatment. This amounts to a direct scuttling of the "special relationship" we have had since 1945. My questions: If we are to make such a drastic change, what is the White House's reaction to it? What is the policy rationale underlying the proposed change?

This doesn't prove D'Souza right. From my memory, however, Obama's treatment of Britain constituted much of the evidence for the "Anti-Colonial" charge.

(2) Anticolonialism was an excellent ideology....when there were colonies. Now that they are not, the question is over "Neo-Colonialism" ie...globalization. My questions: Are we to protect global trade either individually as a nation or collectively through the UN? If the answer is the UN (the usual replacement to British and American power), to what degree will we strenghten its role?

To conclude: I think Obama has great reservations about Britain. Whether it is part of a broader philosophy, as D'Souza would contend, is uncertain. However, even if the administration's views are merely greater skeptism towards Britain I am left with some final questions: (1) Does the Administration still believe in the Special Relationship with Britain? (2) If not, what will its replacement be?

Posted by: pjthom81 | September 19, 2010 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The extreme level of vitriol coming from the Obama acolytes says everything about the truth of D'Souza's assessment of Obama.

Note to D'Souza: The WaPo Liberal echo chamber does not approve.

Posted by: Jack64 | September 19, 2010 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Twenty years of marinating in Reverend Wright's anti-American, anti-White hate and there are those still shocked that he is ant-American and anti-White?

Posted by: mstarvin2003 | September 19, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Kurtz missed the detail that Obama's mother started college classes in Seattle, WA in the Fall of 1961...son in tow, and without the husband. He attended the Hawaiian University until '62, then went on to Harvard. She left him first.

BTW, even though Junior thought Dad was awful for not being there, he still took upon himself the very philosophies said Dad espoused. Why is this an issue?

Posted by: momsaid | September 19, 2010 4:58 PM | Report abuse

And the house of straw continues to fall.

I really thought it would take longer before people could see the King for what he truly is but it is happening. It is happening before our eyes and those that were the true king makers are stunned.

The Drudge Report had a headline "Guard the Change." Obama told black leaders on Saturday he wanted their support to "guard the change" he was delivering.

What is it with this group? Imagine if the headline read, President Bush asks white leaders to guard the change. Such headlines would set Detroit on fire but the king and his friends...oh no they can be a racist as they want.

Poppycock!

Posted by: Blacknblue2 | September 19, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I wrote about your President on 1st May when he injected his little bit of corrosive poison into the minds of young people!
"Just so we know where we stand with this nutter - here's what I saw and heard him say at University of Michigan today!"

"The democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program. Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government. Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn't have all the answers, and we have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom. That is a strand of our nation's DNA."

Some of us Brits who can trace personal links with The Pilgrim Fathers get somewhat pissed-off with this kind of cheap sneer and it's good to know that we're not alone!

Posted by: Investigations1 | September 19, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Laughing out loud and rolling on the floor. Republicans have been taking cheap shots at President Obama for nearly 2 years and have not paid a price because the president was still trying to fashion a bipartisan solution to our country's problem. Well, it is now an election cycle...the gloves are off. Republicans will now whine when President Obama hits back. He warned them.

Posted by: Thependulumswings | September 19, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

To the pendulumswings..you are kidding aren't you when you say "the president was still trying to fashion a bipartisan solution to our country's problem."

Now why in the world when the Dems control all of it would bipartisan be needed? Answer...it isn't needed. Your words ring hollow and just more nonsense coming from a partisan believer.

Join the revolution and give up the addiction to the Dem and Rep badges.

Posted by: Blacknblue2 | September 19, 2010 7:01 PM | Report abuse

D’Souza also calls for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed racial discrimination in employment and in access to public places like restaurants and hotels.

That's from one of this bigots books.
The GOP has truly sunk to a new low, using this "boy" to do their dirty work.

Posted by: CommentingID | September 19, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Forbes is a well know, well thought of publications. Why is the Washington Post so negative about Forbes' article? Yes, I too read both of Obama's books and concluded that B. Obama was greatly influenced by his father (they spent a month together in Indonesia) and his step father, an Indonesian muslim, and his other Islamic relatives. Obama did not come across to me as pro-American. Why is he then our leader? You people who voted for him made a terrible mistake and now our country is paying deeply for it.

Posted by: libertymeanslife | September 19, 2010 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Blacknblue2 | September 19, 2010 7:01 PM
Join the revolution and give up the addiction to the Dem and Rep badges.
------------

What revolution would that be? The Tea Party EXPRESS (not the hundreds of grass roots tea parties that don't trust the EXPRESS) that's being funded by the Billionaire Koch brothers-- the John Birch Libertarian radicals who want to take away your Social Security, unemployment coverage (that you pay for from your wages) and Medicaid to the most needy in our country?

Sure lets all join so that the rich get richer and the middle class gets wiped out of existence. You better wise up before you get what you wish for.

Being angry at your elected officials is one thing, but believing the attack ads and yellow journalism like this piece that's brought to you by Corporate rich white boys is just asking for more trouble.

Posted by: CommentingID | September 19, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

investigations1 wrote:

"Some of us Brits who can trace personal links with The Pilgrim Fathers get somewhat pissed-off with this kind of cheap sneer and it's good to know that we're not alone!"

I'm sorry, were your feelings hurt? Are you still hung up on the return of the bust and the "wrong" gift to the queen? Funny, I could swear that we were no longer a part of your empire, but I guess it's a lonely place now that no one else is either!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 8:19 PM | Report abuse

blacknblue2 wrote:

"The Drudge Report had a headline "Guard the Change." Obama told black leaders on Saturday he wanted their support to "guard the change" he was delivering.

What is it with this group? Imagine if the headline read, President Bush asks white leaders to guard the change. Such headlines would set Detroit on fire but the king and his friends...oh no they can be a racist as they want"

I checked my "code word dictionary" and found nothing under guard the change. What did we miss?

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 8:23 PM | Report abuse

pjthom81 wrote:

"(2) Anticolonialism was an excellent ideology....when there were colonies. Now that they are not, the question is over "Neo-Colonialism" ie...globalization. My questions: Are we to protect global trade either individually as a nation or collectively through the UN? If the answer is the UN (the usual replacement to British and American power), to what degree will we strenghten its role?"

Your reply is well written so you've got a lot on the ball. You need to read more about economics though. The UN overall has almost nothing to do with global trade. Try G-7, G-20, Basel, the IMF and NAFTA for starters. Good post though!

Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

t lewis wrote:

"Again, this was not a magnanimous opposition to colonialism, but an effort to protect our own interests in China (specifically, trading). I think you have a very naive view of history if you assumed that our opposition was truly about anti-colonialism.

And finally Cuba. I consider it a mistake to not have annexed Cuba when we first had the chance. That's just my opinion, but it's largely based on this history that resulted, and I'm including pre-Castro Cuba.

So that's that. The worlds not a simple place -- I don't fault the US for trying to assert itself in the world. But any nation must be careful how it does this because it can have disastrous consequences. Some of our involvement in South America should make this clear. But the Monroe Doctrine and the Open Door Policy were certainly not motivated by anti-colonialism; that's just a simplistic high school (maybe middle school) notion"


Interesting post, and not nearly so simplistic as your first one! Of course in turn of the century China, as at all other times, we have been looking out for our own interests. I don't view our foreign policy as "magnanimous" as you might think I do. You fail to account for the genuine tension in our history between our stated high ideals and our actions.

Our method has always been to conquer through business rather than military. After all, even up to the start of WWI this nation had no standing army worthy of the name. Colonialism by it's very nature is anti-thetical to free trade. Therefore for most of our history, foreign policy is one area where our interests (business and free trade) perfectly coincided with our ideals (anti-colonialism).

I notice that you dismiss my statement about Cuba out of hand since it does not fit your view of the world. There urge to free Cuba was based on some, not all of course, genuine desire on the part of the American people NOT to be involved in colonizing enterprises. You underestimate the vast public debate that went on in this nation pre-Spanish-American War. The Teller Amendment is inexplicable in your view of the world, as are the statues that exist in Cuba to this day celebrating the partnership that created Cuban independence.

I don't have enough room left to dicuss that alone among the victorious allies of WWI we took little or no territorial concessions, based on, unbelievable as it may seem today, a genuine desire not to be involved in colonial enterprise.

Finally, the Suez Crisis and our initial response to French pleas for assistance in Vietnam are impossible to understand if you discount Eisenhower's aversion to becoming trapped in assisting the "old world" to maintian their hegemony and empires.


Posted by: 54465446 | September 19, 2010 8:54 PM | Report abuse

It's clear why the French employed the guillotine so freely during their revolution. It was the only way to rid the country of the entrenched ruling class and their control of the common person. Bravo, mes amis. We could put it to great use here in America today. And include their ill-informed, backward-looking boot-lickers in the chop fest.

Posted by: rdl114 | September 19, 2010 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama must be doing something right. Wall street stole a lot of money from people by making up their numbers and selling bogus stocks and investments around the world based on loans backed by bad debt. They were paid money for it. Then they wanted to get paid again to unravel the mess they created. Now they want to go back to getting over on America again. Go Obama, we didn't put you there to let them put us in a depression. My money may not be big money to the big wigs, but its enough to help stop them from robbing me. Small business is what America needs. He knows it that is why he fought for us on the stimulus while the republicans voted no. I always thought the republican were for small business but I now finally see the light. Go Obama.. screw big Wall Street they screwed us.

Posted by: gFreep2010 | September 19, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Steve Forbes = PNAC = Traitor


'Nuff said.

Posted by: captainkona | September 19, 2010 10:51 PM | Report abuse

gFrep2010:
"I always thought the republican were for small business but I now finally see the light. Go Obama.."

Well done, gFreep.

I'm a real small business owner, my little store, my one employee and me. 250'000 net is NOT small business. 50'000 to 100'000 is "small" and Republicans are worthless to businessmen like myself.
Obama enabled myself and my employee to have health care. Obama cut my taxes already.

Screw the Teabaggers and the jackals that bore 'em. Democrats are the only ones who help small business or any other average American for that matter.

Posted by: captainkona | September 19, 2010 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives use to be against "psycho babble," but now they have flip-flopped by being for Dinesh D'Souza's "psychological theory." What is up with that?

Posted by: ufo2 | September 19, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

54465446:

I'm really not sure what you're objective is here. You completely missed the point of my original post and made inaccurate assessments of US policy. So I corrected those and again asserted my understanding of D'Souza's thesis. I have never claimed that the US was a ravaging colonial power. All I can assume is that you are having trouble staying focused on the subject matter at hand and still don't understand my argument. So let's break this down.

Colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

D'Souza says Obama's father was a fervent anti-colonialist. I don't know if this is true and don't care. But he thinks that Obama believes that the US exhibits characteristics of a colonial power. And to some extent he is correct, in that the US globally projects powers militarily, economically, politically and through various covert activities for its own interests, which generally also favors world interests in my opinion. Well, D'Souza thinks that Obama doesn't like this -- that he would prefer a more passive approach, an approach that has less chance of causing offense. Furthermore, D'Souza believes that Obama agrees with his father in that as the US exhibits "colonial" behavior, the US does damage to the "lesser" nations. And for these reasons Obama wants to diminish the role of the US in the world in addition to righting the wrongs it has committed as a neo-colonial power. I agree with D'Souza to the extent that I also believe that Obama thinks the US is too involved in the world in a "colonial"-like capacity (i.e. the US is too heavy-handedly pushing its weight around). So Obama thinks the solution is to withdraw and diminish into a European-like posture. In an ideal world, this position would be fine, but we live in the age of globalization, which means that we now need to protect our interests outside our border. This generally implies projecting our power in a way that ensures regional stability, yet hopefully not at the cost of justice. And that's difficult to accomplish. But a necessary endeavor to undertake, in my opinion.

So this isn't really about colonialism in a strict sense, though so many posters took up that banner in ignorance. It's about aspects or characteristics of colonialism that the US exhibits in a global economy and what Obama's attitude and position are to these. D'Souza attempts to explain his attitude and position toward "colonial"-like behavior and provide the motivation for these, namely his father's own anti-colonialism. I have significant doubts about his thesis related to his father and really could care less about the motivating factors. I just think he's generally wrong and incredibly naive in his understanding of geopolitics.

This is my last post on this thread. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: __tlewis__ | September 19, 2010 11:23 PM | Report abuse

D'Souza acknowledges one error. He wrote that Obama "is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa."
Was D'Souza's error in not realizing that Hawaii is/was part of the US? I rest my case! He visited Pakistan ONCE! After that kind of an error how can one depend on his knowing anything about Obama, really? D'Souza is not much of a journalist and Forbes must have been in dire need of a column. I would hope that Forbes has lost all of its Democrat readers. There are better financial magazines.

Posted by: littlepaws | September 20, 2010 12:02 AM | Report abuse

I was told by WAPO that I have submitted too many posts in a short time. I have submitted one post in perhaps the past three weeks. Are you censoring WAPO????
How many is too many?

Posted by: littlepaws | September 20, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

Forbes should defend and stand up for American democracy and the freedom of the press by cancelling the meeting with Gibbs on Thursday. No meeting for any complaints from Obama and the White House.

Forbes should stand up for democracy and continue to stand by the article.

If Obama and the White House have a problem with the article, then respond in a counter article with facts to refute the Forbes article.

Forbes needs to inform Gibbs and the White House that this country is not on the road to a dictatorship and suppression of free speech.

Posted by: crat3 | September 20, 2010 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Forbes should defend and stand up for American democracy and the freedom of the press by cancelling the meeting with Gibbs on Thursday. No meeting for any complaints from Obama and the White House.

Forbes should stand up for democracy and continue to stand by the article.

If Obama and the White House have a problem with the article, then respond in a counter article with facts to refute the Forbes article.

Forbes needs to inform Gibbs and the White House that this country is not on the road to a dictatorship and suppression of free speech.

Posted by: crat3 | September 20, 2010 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Where is the CONTEXT!!! D'Sousa's hatchet job may well be direct retaliation for the recent decision to end foreign tax credits for the Big Four US front companies for (India)n IT firms, firms which employ MILLIONS of illegal (India)n tele-aliens, sneaking under Americas borders every night on dark internet tunnels reaching into every US office and factory, stealing away America's good computer IT jobs and pay NOT ONE PENNY in US incomes taxes, just as their US front companies ILLEGALLY PAY NO PAYROLL TAX on their so-called contractors. If you bring a MILLION Central Americans into the US and don't pay taxes, you go to prison, but if you bring a MILLION (India)n tele-commuters into the US EVERY NIGHT and don't pay any taxes, then bob's your uncle! D'Sousa is a paid right-wing assassin from the Mumbai Mob, for Obama doing the right thing, and DAMN the (India)ns for stealing our best jobs, they actually joke about it, calling US 'serfs of Amerika! on Twitter! Surf this, Dinesh! ,.|..

Posted by: chipher | September 20, 2010 12:44 AM | Report abuse

First: anti colonialism is GOOD
Next: this writer has obvious bias and interests as does the editor, so let him do his worst. He brings ugly distortions to the family story in order to enjoy power and attention. So what!!!
Next: it's fine for R. Gibbs to protest and have his say, that's his job.
Next: everybody preaching to their own choir. I respect Obama's story the way he told it. It has more weight than this magazine article. More soulfulness and truth. That's my say so.

Posted by: GaiasChild | September 20, 2010 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Only a handful of others know the true origin of BHO, for he hides his original birth record, his Certificate of Live Birth (different from a Certification of Live Birth). The original birth record would show the details of birth.

"Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama's actual birth documentation, he has kept from the public documentation including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records." (World Net Daily. 2 Sept. 2010.)

What does BHO aim to hide from citizens? A reasonable person may assume the various records documenting the origin and background of BHO reveal information damaging to his claim of citizenship as a natural-born American.

Posted by: anotherview | September 20, 2010 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Who cares.

Posted by: MrTracker | September 20, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

As D'Souza wrote in his previous article in the Post defending attacks on his book:

But if a book [essay] says things that are obviously untrue and can be disproved, then it is not dangerous -- it is merely fiction and should be ignored.

Posted by: gw307 | September 20, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

At least half the people that are virulent Obama-haters KNOW that this stuff is false - even without going to the trouble to spend three minutes at Politifact and find it all debunked. They know that Obama is a patriot, that his positions are moderate, and that he's reached out to Republicans in EVERY case to attempt to build a bipartisan agenda. They know that the actual statements and actions of the extreme right offer well-documented (facts are not the friends of these fascists) proof of their plan, which is to create gridlock for gridlock's sake - so that they can seize power and do what THE NEW REPUBLICANS ARE PLEDGING TO DO - which is to DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY, RE-LEGALIZE no treatment (even if it means the death of them) for patients (including children) with "pre-existing conditions" and to continue the rollback of civil rights. 50 years ago, in post-war, Democratic America, our wages were DOUBLING every generation. Then, the Republicans took over. The result has been the death of the middle class. And what does it take for them to win? Convince a preponderance of frightened, cowed, beaten people - people that simply REFUSE to stand up for their rights (to an education, to a job, to a reasonable wage, to medical care when they're sick, to a better future for their kids), but instead march around with signs saying, "Power to Big Business!" and "Less for us, More for the Insurance Companies!" We the people are actually ADVOCATING for a big business agenda. DO WE FORGET? We gave big business ALL THE POWER for 30 years. They were given the opportunity to "trickle down" a little prosperity for the middle class. They didn't. Instead, for the first time in American history, they LOWERED our wages for four decades. And NOW, they're actually convincing us to hate someone because of his "name" and his "culture." Again, they appeal to our deepest fears with undocumented (and refuted by the evidence) lies and innuendos. And, rather than take the time to learn the truth, many of us are planning VOTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS, to elect people that will extend tax cuts for the rich, destroy Social Security, and repeal President Obama's legislation ending the power of credit card companies to charge interest and fees on an arbitrary basis (without even telling the consumer). The frustration here is that we're becoming sheeple! We're doing the work of the people whose boots are on the backs of our necks. We're saying "no" to fair wages, "no" to Social Security, "no" to access to medical care, "no" to our kids when it comes to education, "no" to our law enforcement officers, and "YES!!!!" to the business interests that plundered our economy and delivered a mess to this administration. Allow me to please apologize to my kids and theirs for the fact of our stupidity, bigotry and willful ignorance. Our generation consists almost entirely of "sunshine soldiers and summer patriots."

Posted by: scottycamp | September 20, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

I encourage all those who read articles that are related to politics this to type TERM LIMITS in the comments. This may get people to FOCUS on real issues and possibly help the best county in the world become great again.

Posted by: Jason360 | September 20, 2010 8:41 AM | Report abuse

It is heartening to see all these people here express my feelings about this abysmal administration and cold-blooded, "I know what's best for you", scolding, finger-wagging President. I am a lifelong Democrat and I am going to vote against every Democrat on the ballot this November, and again in 2012. This man does not represent me, nor does he even have a scintilla of understanding what it means to be an American. I look forward to his one term ending.

Posted by: peapodgrrl | September 20, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

White house: you don't like some of the stuff written about you? Too bad. Freedom of the Press...ever hear of it?

Posted by: peapodgrrl | September 20, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Agree about freedom of speech...may not like it...but that is the LAW...
Want to really be mad..and pass this on..
google >> taxes we pay >ask your/our CAREER politicains what they are going to do about it...

Posted by: rw62827 | September 20, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Methinks the Whitehouse doth protest too much.

Posted by: dtyra1950 | September 20, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Whats wrong with anti-colonial? I'm a white born and raised on the US continent American. Colonialism is basically the root of all evil on the planet. The exploitation and genocide of the indigenous earth based cultures is the whole problem . If we all worshipped the earth as GOD intended instead of money and capitalist exploitation we would all be much better species.

Posted by: yareallygotmegoin | September 20, 2010 10:45 AM | Report abuse

what

is

forbes

Posted by: superf88 | September 20, 2010 10:53 AM | Report abuse

D'Souza,
is just an other Indian like Ponoru, who is trying to please the right wing nuts,
D'Souza : Shut up, Shut up, Shut up, Idiot, you are he foreigner, it is cheap shot trying to put clout on Obama, how much the right wing paid you ?

Posted by: tqmek1 | September 20, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Finally, the administration responds to the wingnuts and crackpots who are the REAL biggest threat to America's security!

Posted by: r3pe | September 20, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

RE: "D'Souza acknowledges one error. He wrote that Obama "is a man who spent his formative years--the first 17 years of his life--off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa."
This is not a simple error, it is a big, fat lie. This alone shows D'Souza to be completely incredible and Forbes reveals its complicity in publishing it.

Posted by: goldiegordon | September 20, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Also, how many of these comments are written by people paid by the RNC?

Posted by: goldiegordon | September 20, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Question to the Pro-colonialism, How you want to pay for It ? did we pay yet for the one trillion dollars used to invade Iraq ? Do you want to create colonialism Tax or do you want to cut Social Security or Medicare or maybe both ?

Posted by: tqmek1 | September 20, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Ronchylady, you are right: Bush wouldn't dare issue a ban on researching his background by others. Obama, on his second day in WH, issued an "executive priveledge" on info about his grades, travel, full birth certificate,his claims to scholarships as a foreign citizen, bar or disbar credentials, university tenures. I want to know and do not want to be lied to.

Posted by: tsarinalla | September 20, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

LOL!Dinesh D'souza (Sleeping with the Racists can be tricky- watch Godfather- you may one day sleeping with the fishes, if they find out your true body-odor)- You were not even born American, only but an american by 'marriage' to an American and still feeling "foreign". You have to go a long way Mr. d'souza, to even understand what nationalism is all about , let alone anti-colonialism...someone with so little respect for his roots, and yapping like a KKK.
I would like to see you walking in the American heartland where the Neo-Nazis will find your skin smell very "foreign" indeed. Try to escape them with your anti-colonialist rhetoric.
Isnt there any other decent calling you found, but to write yellow as muck articles about your own psycho-pathology.
You'll be an alien in India for your "attitude" just as much as you're an alien in the US for your "anti-colonialism", nay "pro-slavery".
People who have talked in favor of this guy , must be by and large "pro-slavery" and think Obama is "anti-christ" because he carries "colored" genes.
How many of you even know that Christ wasn't American, and he was actually quite anti-rich, and anti-colonial too.
Shame on you D'souza, you are neither Indian, not american, nor Christian by that count!

Posted by: S-JNJ | September 20, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

There is more and more nutjobs posting here. And some must be really scary in the real life.

I am a foreign right-leaning observer, fiscally conservative, socially tolerant, and yet I am amazed by the level of stupidity and hatred of the (right to far-right) opposition to this administration and Obama: it is a disgrace.

Posted by: Sensi23 | September 20, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

tsarinalla wrote:

"Ronchylady, you are right: Bush wouldn't dare issue a ban on researching his background by others. Obama, on his second day in WH, issued an "executive priveledge" on info about his grades, travel, full birth certificate,his claims to scholarships as a foreign citizen, bar or disbar credentials, university tenures. I want to know and do not want to be lied to."

Too bad, this was a decent thread two days ago. Anyway one last correction, No executive order was issued or necssary. All those things are closed automatically unless you as a citizen open them to others. Your birth certificate is no more subject to search than his.

Posted by: 54465446 | September 20, 2010 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company