The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our

Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]

and also at the Federal Issues Committee webpage of IndianaArmstrongPatriots.com

Let me count the ways.

Before inauguration.  Senator Obama voted for the budgets he would later blame on Bush, and for the TARP bailout.  After just two months of TARP, the Bush administration said it was done -- crisis averted.  In fact, President Bush was done after using about $270 billion of the $350 B that was authorized by Congress.  But as a courtesy to the incoming president, Bush would request the second $350B from Congress if President-Elect Obama asked for it.

We usually call TARP a "bank bailout," but the banks are paying back every cent lent to them.  In fact, the part of TARP that went to banks is expected to return $3B to taxpayers.  And most of that was paid back quickly.  The "cost" of the "bank bailout" was less than zero!

The effect goes beyond the direct costs to taxpayers and specific investors and employees.  Who would make investments or long-term decisions with this kind of rule-of-man uncertainty and ascendant cronyism?

Spending overall.  Obama requested $350B of TARP before his inauguration.  Within weeks of inauguration, his $831-B "Stimulus" was passed.  And within days of that, he signed a $410-B Omnibus spending bill.

The Omnibus bill and much of the Stimulus and TARP spending occurred in FY 2009, a year that Democrats always try to pin on Bush.  Every dime spent in both FY 2008 and FY 2009 was due to budgets written by a Democrat-led Congress.  And President Obama reigned for the majority of FY 2009.  Democrats own FY 2009.

Compare federal spending in Obama's first four years to the four years that just preceded them: Obama's 24.4% of GDP compared to Bush's 20.1% of GDP.  In today's dollars, that is almost $700B -- every year.

Mitt Romney gets grief from Democrats for having the goal of limiting federal spending to 20% of GDP.  That simply means going back to the pre-Obama years, not the pre-FDR years.  Bill Clinton spent less than 20% of GDP.  George W. Bush spent less than 20% of GDP.  (Eight-year averages.)  Why is it considered some kind of impossible dream?

Obama did not let the financial crisis go to waste.  He permanently grew the federal government under the guise of addressing a short-term problem.

Taxing.  Obama gets a bit of a bad rap on taxes.  Outside ObamaCare (discussed below), he hasn't really raised taxes.  OK, he raised the cigarette tax his first month in office.  And he's always wanting to raise taxes on "the rich," but he hasn't pulled that off just yet.  In fact, he's generally cut taxes.  But look at the way he does that.

Remember the big tax fight at the end of 2010, when Republicans simply wanted to keep the Bush tax rates in place?  The Republican plan was scored as adding $544B to the 10-year deficit since those rates were scheduled to increase.  Democrats, being so concerned about deficits suddenly, argued that that was too much.  They wanted to let tax rates increase on higher incomes.

So here's how they all compromised: they kept all those tax rates in place and added yet more tax cuts to make the total bill $858B.  The "compromise" was bigger deficits than either party originally proposed.  Here were the tax cuts and credits added by Democrats.  (By the way, a "credit" is considered a "tax cut" even if you had no taxes to cut and the government sent you a check.)

• Unemployment insurance,
• Earned income tax credit,
• American opportunity tax credit,
• Child tax credit,
• Payroll tax,
• Investment incentives,
• Ethanol and alternative fuels credits.

Let me tell you all the ways that was bad.

(1) These extra cuts and credits increased the deficit -- even more than simply doing what the Republicans had asked for, 60% more.

(2) When the goal should be to simplify the tax code, these made it incredibly more complex.

(4) These cuts and credits were "targeted" rather than broad-based.  Politicians picked who the winners and losers were.

(5) The U.S. tax code became a temporary, two-years-at-a-time, made-up-as-we-go-along system.  No one can make long-term financial decisions (investing, buying a house, hiring) based on the U.S. tax system.

(7) The payroll tax cuts put the already shaky entitlements of Social Security and Medicare in even more precarious positions.

In 2007, the Bush tax rates managed to raise 18.5% of GDP, above the 1960-2000 average of 18.2%.  With all the tax-tinkering in the last four years, federal revenues have stayed below 16% of GDP -- the lowest levels since 1950.  (That might be a good thing, if we weren't spending at the highest levels since 1946.)

More complex, more progressive, more anti-growth, more fiscally irresponsible, and less predictable.  Everything you want in a tax system, right?

Look at that chart in parts. The left part is through 2007. Once we paid down our World War II debt, it never exceeded 50% of GDP.  And when Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1994, for the first time in 40 years, they brought that debt down from 49% of GDP to 36% of GDP in 2007.

Then Democrats won both the House and Senate.  Democrats wrote the budgets for FY 2008 and '09, and then maintained those gains with continuing resolutions ever since (not real budgets).  From 2007 to 2012, federal debt held by the public more than doubled as a fraction of GDP!  See that sharp rise up in the chart in those years?

Over half a century of reasonably responsible fiscal policy was wiped out in one president's term.

Now look at the chart and see what comes after 2012.  First is a little one-decade flat period manufactured by Timothy Geithner's outlandish assumptions like real GDP growth over 4% from 2014 through 2017.  After Geithner's make-believe 10-year window, we're off to the races.  Our public debt goes through all levels seen by Spain, Greece, etc. and, in fact, off to infinity.  It never even levels off, much less declines.

And this is Obama's plan.  This chart is the best his guys could come up with, even making all the bogus assumptions they could possibly invent.  His "plan" is little more than running up the most expensive restaurant bill in history and then skipping out on the check.

In round numbers (because the time periods don't match exactly), ObamaCare really costs about $1.7 trillion, but it also raises taxes by about $1.1 trillion (oops, I guess Obama did raise taxes), and it cuts Medicare over $700 billion.  The CBO says.

Energy and regulation.  You might think the above litany would be enough.  But Obama wasn't finished.

Question for the reader: if you were to pivot and focus on jobs like a laser, would you flood the country with new job-killing regulations as fast as your czars could create them?

I close with a quote.

    August 19, 2012

I was a good loser four years ago. "In the grand scheme of history," I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, "four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing."

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised "not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth." He promised to "build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together." He promised to "restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost." And he promised to "transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age." Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was "doing fine." Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true "fiscal gap"—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: "You know, Peter, we’re really home alone ... I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues]." On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. "You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision," Summers told Orszag, "because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding." (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable "seminar" on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new "Basel III" accords governing bank capital adequacy.

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the "fee for service" model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the "individual mandate" (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be "Pelosicare," since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no "grand bargain" with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: "In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another ... The United States does not seek to contain China ... On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations." Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a "pivot" back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. "I’m also proud to carry with me," he told Egyptians, "a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum ... I’ve come here ... to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based ... upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition."

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an "orderly transition." The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

"This is what happens when you get caught by surprise," an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. "We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None."

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing "war crimes."

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has "lost his narrative" since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious "you didn’t build that" speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Over the past few years Ryan’s "Path to Prosperity" has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 "Roadmap for America’s Future" as a "business consumption tax." Stockman needs to remind himself that the real "fairy-tale budget plans" have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of "don’t ask, don’t tell" (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not "doing fine" right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

Dinesh D'Souza did a stellar job in his wonderfully enlightening movie on Barack Obama. D'Souza imparts more information about Obama in his two-hour movie than the mainstream media has presented in the last four years.  The movie is highly accurate in its details and presents them in a scholarly and organized fashion.  The mainstream media is predictably denouncing the movie and questioning its factual accuracy.  But their complaints focus on niggling differences of journalistic opinion and come across as partisan bickering.

To reinforce his view, D'Souza takes the movie audience on a grand tour of the main locales that influenced Obama's life: Indonesia, Hawaii, Kenya, Chicago, and Cambridge.  He interviews people who knew Obama's early life and his father.  D'Souza does an exemplary job with the material that he covers.

But I respectfully have to disagree with D'Souza on his premise and main conclusion.

Americans have little appreciation for the European colonial wars and the centuries of conflict between European colonial powers and the third-world nations they occupied.  D'Souza reminds us that the USA was a colonial oppressor in Hawaii, but this is news to most of us.  There was never a war or fighting of any kind with the Hawaiian people.  It is our understanding that they welcomed America and wanted to become the fiftieth state.  Americans don't have a colonial mindset.  This is not an American thing.

My research informs me that Barack Obama is a committed radical Marxist -- a socialist revolutionary.  This is not kook talk.  His entire history is one of early and continued exposure to communist ideology, and of his acceptance and championing of the socialist model.

No one believes that his work as a community organizer in Chicago was for any democratic or traditional American cause, or for charity.  Obama has always advocated socialist revolution with the goal of realizing the communist ideal: a government run by an enlightened political elite in which the state owns all property and the means of production, and the people conform to the requirements of communal life: from each according to his ability, and to each according to his need.  Obama has never been an advocate of rule by the consent of the governed, the capitalist economic system, and limited constitutional government.  He has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for constitutional republican government, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.

Obama's early training began with his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, herself a leftist who married a communist Muslim, Barack Obama, Sr., whom she admired greatly (and met in a Russian language class).  She moved on to Obama's stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian Muslim, whom she divorced when he espoused an appreciation for capitalism and openly rejected communism.  Stanley Ann sent Obama back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents to get him away from Soetoro's influence.  His grandparents, leftists to the core, put him in Punahou School, which was a hotbed of anti-colonialism and anti-Americanism.

Obama's grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party, who for ten years acted as Obama's mentor.  They were very close, as close as father and son. 

Obama called him "Pops" or "Frank."  The FBI labeled Davis as a radical communist agitator who was "anti-white."  This is the man who mentored Obama through most of his formative years.  Barack Obama was a fully committed communist revolutionary before he left high school.

Obama didn't want to be mistaken for a sellout -- someone who believed in America and her founding ideals.  He eschewed bourgeois society and identified with the social revolutionaries.

Obama continued his radical associations and Marxist revolutionary studies at Colombia University and Harvard. 

Obama was becoming more radicalized as he progressed through the academic institutions that nurture and advocate anti-American ideology.  The worst of it was to come later at Harvard.

Obama's religious mentor for twenty years was the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a radical racialist who is famous for his condemnations of American government and white America.  Obama's pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ preached that blacks should sing not "God Bless America," but rather "God damn America."  Reverend Wright is a proponent of Black Liberation Theology, an extremely offensive, radical, racist doctrine, popular with the Nation of Islam.

Obama had a close relationship with Derrick Bell, a professor of law at Harvard University.  Bell developed Critical Race Theory, which condemns white America as being hopelessly racist and posits that American society has racism engrained in all of its institutions, in all of its laws, and in the very fabric of its culture.  Breitbart uncovered video of Obama embracing Bell on the Harvard campus during a diversity protest in 1991.  The news media suppressed the video of Obama embracing the radical racist professor of law.  Americans have no clue of this aspect of Obama's radicalism.

D'Souza reports on Obama's uncanny ability to use the racial sensitivity of white people to his advantage.  This is one of the most important points of this movie, but it is too briefly covered.  How did Obama get elected to the presidency in the first place?  White people who felt guilty over racism voted him into office.  He certainly was not elected based on his qualifications.  It is ironic that a nation with a white majority -- 73% of its citizens -- voted into their highest elected office a man who resents and distrusts them, their culture, their traditions, and their government.

I have to agree with Dinesh D'Souza that the anti-colonial sentiment, which was prevalent in Africa and Asia during Obama's formative years, was an important influence in his thinking.  The principal ideas of anti-colonialism encompass anti-European, anti-white, anti-capitalist, and anti-Christian sentiments, which Obama exhibits in his behavior on an almost daily basis.

But I do have to disagree with the esteemed D'Souza that this is the primary motivating factor that drives Obama's rage.

Obama's political ambitions have been endorsed by the New Party, The Socialist Party USA (Workers of the World Unite), the Communist Party USA, and of course, the de-facto socialist party of America, the Democratic Party.  There is no real secret about where Obama comes from or where he wants to take us.  Never in the history of our nation have we had such a powerful leader whose entire life has been so thoroughly steeped in socialist revolution and communist ideology, and who has so openly advocated such anti-American ideas.

Barack Obama's life's work has always been to bring about socialist revolution in the United States.  He seeks "social justice" to redress the grievances of the oppressed peoples of color -- not because "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama's primary motivational drivers are socialist ideology and racialism.

The answer to the question "Who is Barack Obama and what is he up to?" is really quite clear:

Barack Hussein Obama is a radical socialist revolutionary, and his mission is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state.

He must be stopped.