I highly recommend seeing the movie "2016: Obama’s America" based on international research and interviews by Dinesh Dsouza. It is a non-partisan look at his life and explains his perspective on governing and America. For your personal copy of his recent book visit amazon or your local bookstore.

~Don Sorchych


Obama’s America:  Unmaking The American Dream

dinesh dsouzaBookmark and Share

Chapter One - Inner Compass
I will show in this book that the mainstream Republican critique of Obama is no less problematic than the liberal hosannas. Obama is not merely the presiding instrument of American decline, he is the architect of American decline. He wants America to be downsized. He wants Americans to consume less, and he would like to see our standard of living decline relative to that of other nations. He seeks a diminished footprint for America in the world. He detests Americas traditional allies, like Britain and Israel, and seeks to weaken them; he is not very worried about radical Muslims acquiring a nuclear bomb or coming to power in countries like Tunisia and Egypt. He is quite willing to saddle future generations of Americans with crippling debt; he has spent trillions of dollars toward this end, and if he had been permitted, he would have spent trillions more. He has shown no inclination, and has no desire, to protect America’s position as number one in the world; he would be content to see America as number 18, or number 67, just another country seated at the great dining table of nations. The strength of my thesis is that it is completely congruent with who Obama is and what he does. We don’t have to assume that he is always getting results opposite to what he intends; we simply have to see that he intends the results he is getting. He emphasized in his inauguration speech his goal of remaking America – and he is doing it, recognizing that in order to remake America he must first unmake America. The only question is whether Americans approve of their country being diminished and downsized, and whether they want to give Obama another four years to finish the job.

While the evidence is overwhelming that Obama’s actions are accelerating Americas decline, I can understand the reluctance of Obama’s supporters, and even some of his critics, to believe that this could possibly be his objective. Never before in American history have we had a president who seeks decline, who is actually attempting to downsize his country.

Presidents are elected to protect and strengthen their country, so why would a president weaken it? We cannot answer this question without understanding Obama himself, his background, and his ideology. Without such understanding, we are vulnerable to all kinds of crazy theories. I am certainly not one of those who say that Obama hates America, or that Obama is a traitor, or that Obama is a Manchurian candidate who is being manipulated by some secret cabal. Not so – Obama is doing these things because of who he is, because of what he believes. He subscribes to an ideology that says it is good for America to go down so that the rest of the world can come up. He wants Americans to be poorer so that Brazilians and Colombians can be richer. He thinks it would be beneficial to us and to the world for there to be many rich and powerful nations, with no single nation able to dominate or dictate terms to any other. Obama is a visionary for global justice. He wants to set right the ship of the world that, in his view, has been tilted to one side for nearly five hundred years, ever since Western civilization began to colonize and rule the nations of Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

So the key to Obama is his ideology, his inner compass.

Chapter Two - Invisible Man
While Obama has been blocking oil drilling in the United States, he has been promoting and even subsidizing it in other countries. Obama placed on hold the proposal for the Keystone oil pipeline even though the project would, at a time of economic hardship, create thousands of new American jobs. Many interpreted Obama's action as a concession to environmental groups, and this is consistent with the conservative view of Obama as a typical liberal, another acolyte of Al Gore environmentalism.

This is not Obama's view. Case in point: On May 9, 2011, the Obama White House announced that it was providing $2.84 billion in American taxpayer money to finance oil drilling and oil refining in the South American nation of Colombia. The money goes to Refica, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Colombian government. Now what rationale could there be for America giving money to the Colombian government to drill and refine oil? One might expect that oil to come to the United States, but the U.S. Export-Import Bank, which cleared the transaction, clarified that this was not the case. The oil would be used for Colombia, and the Colombians could sell the surplus on the export market. This raises the larger question:

Why would Obama block drilling over here but promote it over there?

Obama routinely advances the interests of foreign companies over those of American companies. Currently the Obama administration is promoting in Asia a trade treaty called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As drafted by the Obama team, the treaty would prevent any U.S. manufacturers who advertise Buy American from qualifying for U.S. government contracts covered by the treaty. Another provision would allow foreign companies doing business in America to appeal regulatory rulings on labor and environmental issues to an international tribunal. This international tribunal would have the authority to overrule American law and to impose trade sanctions on America for Failing to abide by its rulings. When sixty House Democrats protested the impact of this on American sovereignty and American jobs, Obama officials refused to share with them the provisions of the treaty and said they were merely trying to be non-discriminatory in their contracting processes.

In 2011 the Obama administration was faced with two bids for a $1 billion military contract. The contract was between Hawker Beechcraft, an American company based in Wichita, Kansas, and the Brazilian company Embraer, which is owned by the Brazilian government. Hawker had worked closely with the Air Force for two years and invested more than $100 million preparing to meet the contracts requirements. But at the last minute, the company was informed in a letter that it would not be considered for the contract. No explanation was given. The contract was subsequently awarded to the Brazilian competitor. Industry analysts expressed surprise. Normally the American government tries to award contracts, especially in the defense industry, to American companies.

Hawker Beechcraft loss of the contract, the company confirmed, will now lead to layoffs, and of course it will make part of our national defense dependent on a Brazilian contractor. In another case, the Obama administration, once again operating through the Export-Import Bank, provided $3.4 billion in loan guarantees to Air India, the national airline owned by the Indian government. India used the subsidy to buy new planes and launch nonstop service between Mumbai and New York, undercutting Delta, which had pioneered nonstop flights between these two destinations two years earlier. Delta was forced to abandon its Mumbai-New York service, and the company has bitterly complained to the Obama administration, accusing it of subsidizing foreign carders at the expense of American companies and American jobs. Obama, however, recently secured increased funding for the Export-Import Bank, and he has been praising its efforts to subsidize a loan program for Lion Air of Indonesia to purchase Boeing planes.