Barack Obama is a secret Kenyan Anti-Colonialist

Framework: So we're clear, the statement in support of the Negative in Round 1 is not a concession to change the rules of presumption that operate within debate. Your definitions about a cricket player that will "2.( intr ) cricket (of a nonstriking batsman) to move down the wicket in readiness for a run as a ball is bowled " is not sufficient to change the framework that constitutes academic or competitive debates. The relevant definition of course is support or assist and I am completely willing to do that within the rules of competitive debates which presumes that a statement is false until it is established by the affirmative. That said I will offer a framework that allows the readers of this debate to actually affirm the negative as opposed simply to negate the affirmative. This is still not to be expected of the negative because of the inherent possibility that lies within affirmative propositions I will attempt to establish that it is more likely for the president not to be a secret Kenyan anti-colonialist than it is that he is. Contentions in support of negating the proposition: Definitions: First and foremost, the individual in question holds the office of the President of the United States. According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens of the United States are authorized to hold the office of the President. Given that reality the president cannot be a Kenyan. We'll now move on to the proposition that I wished to take issue with is the president a secret anti-colonialist. A colonialist is one who advocates colonialism defined by dictionary.com as follows: co•lo•ni•al•ism –noun 1. the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people. 2. the system or policy by which a nation maintains or advocates such control or influence. 3. the state or condition of being colonial. 4. an idea, custom, or practice peculiar to a colony. Someone who is anti-colonialist would hold the opposite of these beliefs. Given that the debate is over whether the president is secretly an anti-colonialist and I was not simply attempting to argue "gotcha we can't tell if someone is secretly something or not," I feel that policies were the effective way to argue whether the president holds anti-colonialist beliefs. On the whole, it appears that the president far from being an anti-colonialist holds colonialist sentiments. Contention 1: We can start our inquiry at the midpoint of his election cycle. After the comments of Reverend Wright, Barack Obama was placed on the defensive. Instead of making it clear that he believed in what Reverend Wright said who was making an anti-colonialist critique, he harshly condemned the Reverend and said something that no anti-colonialist would ever utter: "On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.[1]" He goes on: "But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.[1]" In other words not only did he not support the Reverend's critique, he fundamentally disavowed it arguing that one should not disparage the "greatness and goodness" of this nation by referring to acts of colonial past and present. When given the chance to support and defend and give credence to the anti-colonialist critique that rightly situates the US as a global hegemon that seeks to impose its will and control the destinies of numerous nations he instead took issue with it. Contention 2: War in Iraq Yes the president chose to end the war in Iraq. What he did not do was to restore full sovereign control to that nation. While the war has faded from the news due to increasing coverage about Afghanistan the president has left security forces in Iraq to maintain control fundamentally making the Iraqi government dependent on American support. Additionally and more importantly he did nothing to change the colonial laws that were forced on Iraq under the Bush administration. That government and constitution remained fully under our boot. If we look at Obama's critique of the invasion and occupation of Iraq we see not a radical anti-colonialist but instead a very liberal critique that has a benevolent view of American power. He always maintained that Iraq was a mistake. Anti-colonialists have long maintained not that Iraq was a mistake but that it was a fundamental expression of American power to resituate the global balance of power in the Middle East. Israel is increasingly becoming a strategic liability and so America chose to shore up its support in the region through creating a government that it could count on. Obama has never laid out this analysis and instead pushes forward the myth that the war in Iraq distracted us from our real mission which was finding Bin Laden. Contention 3 War in Afghanistan This one is easy. The president continues to perpetrate war against a sovereign nation who has repeatedly indicated that they have no interest in the expansion of war or drone attacks. In typical colonialist fashion the president has shown that what we say goes and increased drone attacks even occasionally crossing the border into Iran. Contention 4 Iran Repeatedly makes threats against a sovereign nation that if they pursue policies that are within their legal rights there will be consequences insinuated to be consequences of force. Not only illegal but also the height of imperialist policy. Conclusion: If we give weight to actions all of the above actions constitute clearly that the president while not only not opposing colonialism has made it a part of his presidency just as every president before him.