Last week during CPAC, Dinesh D’Souza stopped by The Lars Larson Show and told the conservative commentator that President Obama was elected because “the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion.”
He said that voters went with Obama because they didn’t want to make “an angry black man” who backed “racial reparations” the country’s first black president, not realizing that Obama is actually “more radical” than such a candidate because “he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis.”
Larson: How did we end up with a president who didn’t look out first and foremost for America’s best interests and the best interests of the people here, and somehow cast himself as, what, a president of the world?
D’Souza: What really happened Lars I think is this: the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion. The American people were scared that our first black president would be, in a sense, you may say an angry black man, some sort of a radical who would be calling for racial reparations. And Obama didn’t do that and so people went ‘phew, he’s not like that, he’s going to be somebody who will look out for the country.’ What they didn’t realize was that although Obama doesn’t support racial reparations, he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis. So he is actually in a way more radical. But that was not seen by most people and is only becoming sadly apparent now.
D’Souza also warned that Hillary Clinton would fulfill Obama’s “radical” agenda if she follows him as president.
“My feeling is that Hillary is closer to Barack than she is to Bill,” D’Souza said. “Hillary was always the radical in that duo.”
“I think Obama may have intuited that if he’s going to remake America in the way that he said he was going to, he may have decided, ‘Eight years is not enough, if I had the Congress I might have been able to do it, I need sixteen years.’ So I wonder if in Obama’s mind he’s thinking, ‘If I give the baton to Hillary, will she run in the same direction that I’ve been running?’”