I just saw
2016: Obama. Dinesh D'Souza is right: Obama is a traitor. Nevertheless, the film's lack of historical perspective is troubling. D'Souza's ignoring history allows him to exaggerate Obama's importance. Moreover, D'Souza colors his facts wrong. For example, indebtedness that has arisen during Obama's administration is not new. The president who threw the U.S. into a pattern of heavy indebtedness was D'Souza's former boss, Ronald Reagan. Moreover, the bigger financial problem is the Republican-and-Democratic-supported bailout.
D'Souza claims that Obama is using debt to bankrupt us. He forgets that
Reagan's supply-side economics was just a variation of Keynesian
economics. D'Souza forgets that it was Nixon who took us off the gold standard and so permitted the past 40 years of Fed plundering; he forgets
that it was George W. Bush, supported by both McCain and Obama, who initiated $29 trillion--more than twice the American economy--in Federal Reserve subsidies to banks.
Obama's indebtedness is tiny in comparison to the Fed's 2008 and 2009 bailouts, which
the Republicans as well as Obama conceptualized and continue to support.
Traitors linked to Wall Street and the Council on Foreign Relations have been running America for a century. The Republicans have plenty to answer for, such as Prescott Bush's and other Brown Brothers Harriman associates' funding of Stalin and Hitler as Anthony Sutton outlines in his history of Skull and Bones. Sutton describes how David Rockefeller met on a regular basis to trade ideas with a Soviet ambassador at a time when it was illegal to do business with the Soviets. The CFR favored trade with and subsidies to the Soviet Union at a time when billions were being spent to build defenses against them, and more than 50,000 Americans died in Vietnam.
In other words, the disloyal, internationalist pattern started with Woodrow Wilson, JP Morgan, and Bernard Baruch, and continued through David Rockefeller and the investment bankers of today. Obama is a symptom of Federal Reserve-based capitalism, but D'Souza paints him as a radical new cause. It was George H. W. Bush's administration that signed the anti-American, anti-colonialist UN Agenda 21. If anti-colonialism is new to the highest levels of American policy making, as D'Souza claims, why did Bush sign Agenda 21? It is true that Obama is aggressively implementing Agenda 21, but if the Republicans oppose it, why did Bush adopt it? What did Bush mean by
new world order, a phrase taken out of the history of Progressivism and Skull and Bones, and does Bush's new world order differ from Obama's in more than a few details?
Since the beginning of Progressivism in the late 19th century, the Progressives have posed false dichotomies, aiming for a synthesis that differs from both thesis and anti-thesis. The roots of Progressivism were in the nineteenth century German universities where the first American Progressives, such as Daniel Coit Gilman, creator of the modern American university, were educated. Left versus right, liberal versus conservative, and Republican versus Democratic serve to divert attention from the synthesis: massive rents paid to special interests and Wall Street via the Fed's counterfeiting mechanism. Both Democrats and Republicans have consistently excelled in paying them. The political synthesis that will result from totalitarians like Obama and Romney is totalitarianism, but the way to fight it is to step outside the conflict and destroy its pretended universality, not to demonize Obama. The kind of false dichotomy that D'Souza offers is part of the totalitarian trend.
The points that stick in my throat are Obama's apparent anti-Zionism, hostility to Israel, and hostility to the British. An America that transfers tens of trillions of dollars to banks will not be of much help to Israel in any case.
