Put His Puss on Mt. Rushmore

President Obama thinks Mahatma Gandhi is a founding father… or something:

“The America of today has its roots in the India of Mahatma Gandhi and the nonviolent social action movement for Indian independence which he led,” Obama said in a statement.

“His teachings and ideals, shared with Martin Luther King Jr. on his 1959 pilgrimage to India, transformed American society through our civil rights movement.”

That was about a year ago, but perhaps that’s why he bought an extra ticket on Air Force One for TOTUS this time around. (Anybody else find it amusing that he and Michelle are skedaddling to the other side of the world but two days after the election?)

After infatuations with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dorn, Saul Alinsky, et al, since when did Obama admire “nonviolent social action”?

But I will tell you what is consistent: his complete, total, and unadulterated ignorance of American history. Henry David Thoreau and Civil Disobedience? What about the overwhelming majority of the abolitionists and the early labor movement? Even the prohibitionists employed nonviolent social action.

And while Gandhi was the symbolic leader of independence, he therefore must also have been the symbolic leader of the Partition of India and Pakistan and the bloodletting that followed. Could India have been preserved as a united country with such a large Muslim minority? Probably not (especially given more recent developments in radical Islam). But “Gandhi’s India” failed tragically.

But you know where else Gandhi fell short, don’t you?

“My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?”

That was 1938, not 1948, but it was published on November 11—two days after Kristallnacht. Nice timing, Mahatma.

But hey, it’s not like Jews had ever been persecuted before in Germany, say, or Austria, or Russia, or Ukraine, or Poland, or Romania, or throughout the Middle East (all of which would have been within living memory). The guy probably just forgot to study before the test.

But then… but then, there’s this:

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs… Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.”

Impose the Jews? Bald piece of [bleep].

Gandhi’s prescription for the Jews in Germany and the Arabs in Palestine was non-violent resistance. With regard to the Jewish problem in Germany, Gandhi noted, “I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action, the winter of their despair can, in the twinkling of an eye, be turned into the summer of hope.”

Gandhi liberated his country from an empire that, on the sliding scale of morality, was on the side of the angels. Try that non-violent [bleep] on the Nazis. Good thing Hindus like funeral pyres, because you would have been able to see the light from bonfire of corpses from Australia.

And ignorance was no excuse:

Famous Jewish pacifists, Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Hayim Greenberg, who otherwise admired Gandhi, felt “highly offended by Gandhi’s anti-Zionism” and criticized him for his lack of understanding of the spirit of Zionism. Martin Buber, in a long reply to Gandhi’s Harijan editorial, remarked, “You are only concerned, Mahatma, with the “right of possession” on the one side; you do not consider the right to a piece of free land on the other side – for those who are hungering for it.”

Face it: the blessed Gandhi sold the Jews down the river because he was sensitive to the feelings of the Muslims in India.

And how ironic is it that the cause for which he did betray their aspirations (aspirations so much like his own), Arab nationalism, gave rise to the most violent, cruel, bloody-minded people in the world?

Pretty damn [bleeping] ironic.


  1. Buck O'Fama said,

    October 25, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

    Just curious, is there any subject which Obama has demonstrated any kind of broad, significant knowledge about? We know history and economics are out. He doesn’t seem to know all that much about the law, either, from what I’ve read on other blogs (of the non-leg-tingling kind.) But, the guy went to school for umpteen years…. hopefully, he mastered something besides lunch….

  2. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    October 25, 2010 @ 6:35 pm


    My guess is that the reason we can’t see the Columbia transcripts has little to do with grades and much to do with course selection. I bet it is a smorgasbord of black power, anti-colonialist, radical stuff. The period that he was an undergrad was famous for over-the-top courses.

    Regarding Ghandi: The karma of it all is that Islamic terrorists enjoy killing Indians too.

    – Aggie

  3. Bryan said,

    October 25, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

    Let’s not forget, the Mahatma was so peaceful and non-violent that he did not believe in fighting the Nazis or the Japanese. He and the Indian National Congress informed the British that their policy was going to be noncooperation with the British by not fighting the Japanese.

    Considering what the Japanese did in their conquered territories, a Japanese invasion of India would probably have resulted in a massacre of proportions reminiscent of those in Nazi-occupied Poland.

  4. Bloodthirsty Liberal said,

    October 25, 2010 @ 6:46 pm

    Thank you, Bryan. Entirely relevant.


RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment