We went to the movie theater this week; not to see the latest loud, violent, grotesque and inane picture such as those imposed on us with annoying trailers for nearly a half-hour prior to the feature film. This picture was made for Americans who want to learn and think about what we might expect from another presidential term under the ideology of Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro—named for his mother’s second husband).
As far as I can tell, relatively few people know about the production titled: “2016: Obama’s America.” The film grossed over $6 million this past weekend (a “blockbuster” more than $9 million by last Monday) yet we saw no press promotion; no public announcements; no rave reviews. Word had spread through the “alternative media”: Internet, talk radio and e-mail. I had an uneasy feeling that we were involved in some clandestine affair. Would there be flack-vested, masked and armed government agents at the door to turn us away, shut down the theater and confiscate the film? Not yet anyway.
The audience on a Monday afternoon consisted of, I’d estimate, about 50 or 60 mature adults. I noted a somber mood during and after the film. It was foreboding, almost surreal— difficult to comprehend that Americans had elected a president conditioned with anti-American, communist and Muslim sympathies.
According to an Associated Press writer, “2016” is a “new conservative film” produced and narrated by “conservative scholar” Dinesh D’Souza. D’Souza is a scholarly guy. He’s an accomplished author and a competent investigator. The film was professional quality. Wilmington StarNews film/book editor Ben Steelman praises the production as “finely polished, with dramatic camera angles and skillful, rhythmic editing,” but he calls it “a 90-minute campaign commercial.” (link)
D’Souza set out on a quest to understand why our current president acts radically different than previous holders of the office—not connected to the views of most Americans. What he found in travels, interviews and in Mr. Obama’s own words was disturbing. I didn’t see this from a partisan political perspective; rather, in my opinion, it was a serious effort to inform Americans, largely uninformed, about their president—why he often publicly says one thing and acts in contradictory ways.
As far as I could tell little in the film is new, but the American press has been totally disinterested in Obama’s background. One of Obama’s communist mentors admitted that if the public knew about it he would never have been elected. Supporters are in denial and accuse Obama opponents of racism. But they will have a difficult time labeling D’Souza “racist.”
D’Souza is an immigrant from India with skin color indistinguishable from that of Mr. Obama. Early in the film D’Souza introduces himself and describes his background; not unlike the early life of Obama. Both are persons of “color.” They grew up in Third World countries previously colonized by Western governments. They were sheltered from appalling social conditions and given educational opportunities. They attended prestigious American universities. But that’s where the similarities end.
While D’Souza chose the path of assimilation and appreciated the miraculous freedom and opportunities he was offered in America, Obama was taught that Americans oppressed and victimized people of color around the world and profited unfairly from their resources. In college D’Souza identified with people who believed in the “American Dream” and worked to achieve it; Obama sought out professors and mentors who hated America and aligned with communist ideology using radical, sometimes terrorist, methods to change America and retaliate for perceived grievances.
D’Souza’s documentary traces Obama’s personal history and that of his extended families connecting a long line of dots—sometimes confusing and difficult to follow. He visited Kenya, Indonesia and Hawaii to trace the story of where Obama got his worldview—presumably tied to his biological African father, the subject of the Obama autobiography: “Dreams from my Father.”
Often in the film background Obama reads from this book; in his own words confirming much of what D’Souza references. He interviews Obama’s relatives and various scholars who provide anecdotal evidence to explain Obama’s social conditioning; suggesting the motivation for his presidential views and actions, both foreign and domestic.
Predictably, the press will attack the credibility of D’Souza’s work. Recently, Associated Press writer Beth Fouhy attempted to discredit his thesis writing under a headline, “Anti-colonial Obama not plausible.” Ms. Fouhy lists several specific actions by Obama mentioned in D’Souza’s documentary to support his suggestion of the president’s anti-colonialism. “Many of them don’t hold water,” she writes. (link)
I conclude from viewing the D’Souza documentary that the filmmaker’s revelations are valid and likely credible. Of course, no one can know precisely what another person is thinking, or what exactly motivates his decisions—D’Souza doesn’t claim that clairvoyance. However, based on what I saw in the film and from other observations of presidential actions (not his words), I think that D’Souza’s thesis is believable.Read full article » No Comments »