Ayinde said:

Obama's statement in Ghana was just another instance of him using an aspect of his mixed heritage to exact a desired imperialistic outcome.

How so...? What exact "imperialistic outcome are you referencing? If his intentions are solely imperialistic in nature, why would it be necessary to make such a statement. America has been very imperialistic in it's actions in the past without any outward overtures of allegiance/solidarity with Africa or Africans.
++++++++++++++++=
Ayinde said:
His mouthing of solidarity with Africans in his Ghanaian speech was done in order to assist the anti-African expansion of the U.S. empire with all its corruption and its brutalities.

Why would he need 'assistance' with anti-African expansion.

Ayinde said: In Cairo, he played up on his Muslim heritage for the same unreason. On the other hand, he and his handlers played down his Muslim heritage and played up on his White ancestry during the presidential election campaign for him to be seen as more amiable to Whites. So far, Obama has demonstrated that his allegiance is primarily to the White elite establishment.

No one would argue that Obama is a great 'politician.' As politicians attempt to be 'all things' for all people. Considering that America is a majority white country, it is natural that he, if his goal is to be president - would seek to gain the 'trust' of the majority constituency.

Ayinde said: A person can remain in the U.S. or reside anywhere in the world and not be of the colonial or anti-African (Americanized) mindset.

Sure they can, people have free will to reside where they want. But how can one's mindset be measured? If we assume that a person residing in an imperialistic or a state that supports colonial activities, and the person is not actively seeking to exit, said geographic location, then they are by default supporting the imperialist, through the payment of taxes-one of the primary sources of finance for the 'imperialist.' There is no escaping that fact.

Ayinde said: Where one resides does not automatically make one committed to the corrupt policies that are dominant in a region. One could be residing in the U.S., China or any part of the world and be actively committed to decolonizing the minds of people who are desirous of change.

While that sounds good - what does it mean?
Firstly, how do these 'mind de-colonizers' identify a 'colonized mind?' I think Prince outlined pretty well, what he defines as a Colonized Mind.

Whats your definition of this mind state Ayinde? Once mind de-colonizers change the minds of people that 'are desirous of change,' whats the next plan of action? One could also ask the following question: Once the mind has been adequately de-colonized, why would one(s) choose to remain in the land of the colonizers?

Ayinde said: One can also reside anywhere and be part of the force for African development. Marcus Garvey resided in the U.S. for some time and while he was there he contributed to African development.

I think mention Rt. Hon Marcus Garvey was a poor choice of an example to make your point - as Garvey was adamant in his quest of organizing and centralizing Africans in the West towards repatriation to Africa. There was a tangible and physical component to his actions. Garvey did not emigrate to America to 'better' his own life, but to gather the masses towards repatriation.

Ayinde said: One can also reside in Africa and contribute to poisoning the minds of folks there. We have more evidence of this today

True.

Ayinde said: People often make assumptions and are wrong. In this regard, an assumption does not necessarily carry much weight.

True, I don't think that several of your assumptions carry much weight either.

Ayinde said: People can assume that all African residents in Africa automatically identify more with their African roots.

I don't think many people assume this.

Ayinde said: They can assume that Africans from the Diaspora who choose to reside in Africa have some moral or mental superiority over other Africans. Anyone with a little sense can tell that these assumptions are bogus. We can easily prove this.

I don't think many people assume this either. I would counter however, that those members of the Diaspora who have chosen to reside in Africa with the goal of assisting in the development of the continent have chosen to no longer be a 'back-seat' driver, in relation to the works of the Continent of Africa.