Will Dinesh D’Souza Save the World from Obama?
So D’Souza, it turns out, has made an important film, its message made all the more necessary by recent events. The horrifying terror attack in Benghazi could be his trailer.
What was once an election driven entirely by the economy (or the ignoring of it) suddenly has been upended by a situation that has been lurking for years not far beneath the surface — the War on Terror, the War on Islamism, call it what you will (I certainly prefer the latter), has never been resolved.
It has just been wished away with the inanity that all is well since Bin Laden was killed. Meanwhile, the demonstrators scaling the embassy walls in Cairo were screaming “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”
But sooner or later this war will be resolved. And, for the sake of ourselves, our children and grandchildren, it better be in our favor.
D’Souza’s movie might help just a little bit, but will it be seen by enough of the electorate to make an impact, to move the dial? So far it’s been doing rather well and is the second highest grossing political documentary of all time behind Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
To put that in perspective, however, as of last weekend, 2016 had a cumulative box office gross just over 30 million dollars. That may seem like a lot but the cumulative gross of The Bourne Legacy — an apparently wretched remake of a remake — was 107 million, The Dark Knight Rises 441 million.
So comparatively speaking, not that many folks have seen 2016, not enough anyway. It’s up to all of us to rectify that. If you haven’t seen it, go and go soon. But most importantly, bring a liberal or independent friend. If you don’t know one, find one. I can promise you — they’re out there.
(NOTE: Lionel and I interview D’Souza for the next Poliwood. Look for it here and on PJTV Friday.)
“Will Dinesh D’Souza Save the World from Obama?”
Well, Dinesh is an extraordinarily capable speaker of “truth to power” but, no, it will take all of us to take Obama down.
Not only will it take all of us, to remove the Islamist-in-Chief’s radical boot off our necks, but every clear thinking person has a role to play.
Those who have been paying attention understand that the radical left is aligning itself with Islamists, regardless of the costs to the US, and the west in general.
Moreover, it is impossible to suggest that his full throttle blunders are happenstance and ignorance.
Hogwash.
They are purposeful, and mostly gleaned from visceral, anti-colonial hatred, the likes of which would make a whore blush. Moreover, he – and his surrogates – sees nothing amiss, while the biggest colonialists in our midst, rampage all over the world, grabbing everything under the boot of Islam!
In any case, as to Valerie Jarrett – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/17/valerie-jarretts-communist-leanings-why-she-matters-serving-as-barack-hussein-obamas-alter-ego-cementing-the-redgreen-alliance-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
and, as to why things are imploding as they are, under the reign of Barack HUSSEIN Obama – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/07/31/the-purposeful-deconstruction-of-the-us-the-co-opting-of-dhs-into-a-radical-force-for-societal-transformation-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
The truth shall set us free, from the POTUS’s malignant plans for the US, and for the rest of the west.
Not only will it take all of us, to remove the Islamist-in-Chief’s radical boot off our necks, but every clear thinking person has a role to play.
Those who have been paying attention understand that the radical left is aligning itself with Islamists, regardless of the costs to the US, and the west in general.
Moreover, it is impossible to suggest that his full throttle blunders are happenstance and ignorance.
Hogwash.
They are purposeful, and mostly gleaned from visceral, anti-colonial hatred, the likes of which would make a whore blush. Moreover, he – and his surrogates – sees nothing amiss, while the biggest colonialists in our midst, rampage all over the world, grabbing everything under the boot of Islam!
In any case, as to Valerie Jarrett – /2012/08/17/valerie-jarretts-communist-leanings-why-she-matters-serving-as-barack-hussein-obamas-alter-ego-cementing-the-redgreen-alliance-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
and, as to why things are imploding as they are, under the reign of Barack HUSSEIN Obama – /2012/07/31/the-purposeful-deconstruction-of-the-us-the-co-opting-of-dhs-into-a-radical-force-for-societal-transformation-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
The truth shall set us free, from the POTUS’s malignant plans for the US, and for the rest of the west
“Those who have been paying attention understand that the radical left is aligning itself with Islamists, regardless of the costs to the US, and the west in general.”
I would buy into the parallels of the west’s radicals and the jihadists. Both seems to have an ideal for the better life of the 7th century. Were they to get together, it wouldn’t be much of a picnic. However possible it is that useful idiots could use other useful idiots, would only happen on the stage of self-destruction.
Adina,
I always look forward to your posts and your blog links. Just curious: being in Israel, were you able to watch the film?
This is one who has never spoken, “truth to power” as he knows no truth. He is a proven, discredited, and inveterate liar. With such an aversion to to truth he cannot save anyone from anything.
Will lies save the world from God, or truth?
Obama is not the only problem. Whose going to save us, and our troops, from our generals?
Human sacrifice 21st Century American style.
It would seem the Aztec High Priests of the 15th century have been reincarnated and are now in full reign at the building some still call the Pentagon.
America’s Generals are now very much like the Aztec High Priests of many centuries ago. The main difference, and it’s a relatively small one, is that instead of continually sacrificing what they regarded as their excess and disposable human property to the Sun God to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, America’s Generals keep trying to sacrifice America’s Constitution, and do sacrifice more and more of the lives and limbs of America’s troops, whom they regard as their excess and disposable human property, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of America’s rapidly shrinking treasure, which although itself is of much lesser importance is still no small matter, to the gods they reverently call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” to try to gain benevolence and avoid wrath, and maybe even get an extra star and another few assorted colorful baubles for which to adorn themselves.
Is our military fighting for anything most Americans would regard as at all decent in Afghanistan? Certainly not our Army, nor our Marines. America’s Generals have repeatedly ordered them to respect the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” and if American troops get shot to death by what their Generals call their Partners in Peace, then the Generals conclude that America’s derelict and sacrilegious troops must not have respected the gods they call “The Prophet Mohammad”, “The Holy Qur’an” and “The Noble People Of Afghanistan and their Noble Muslim Culture” nearly enough and order them to take still more religious and cultural “sensitivity” training so they can better respect the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan, maybe even enough where they can start joining in the practicing of that Noble Muslim Culture themselves, which would no doubt delight the Generals to no end.
There of course is never any “sensitivity” training ever even recommended for what America’s Generals call “The Noble People Of Afghanistan” so they might better understand and appreciate Western and American culture. But then as America’s Generals clearly must regard the Noble Muslim Culture of the Noble People of Afghanistan as being far superior to Western and American culture, they would surely regard any such thing as, well, absolutely unthinkable, and blasphemous, and upon hearing any such suggestion would no doubt order even more “sensitivity” training.
* Mainstream Noble People of Afghanistan Muslim Culture includes child rape of both young girls and young boys, torturing dogs including puppies, total enslavement of women, stoning women to death for being raped, and death to apostates, which itself covers a whole lot, just to very briefly mention a few of the highlights.
C’mon, FeralCat, you’re out of order here with all of that diatribe.
Not wanting American troops to be killed to make muslims feel better is out of order and a diatribe?
FeralCat’s contempt and scorn of the “th’ Generals” is misdirected.
They follow the orders of their civilian political bosses…plural. Nor is his blanket condemnatory attitude reflective of the Military I served in in the late 1950′s, nor the Military I was witness to in the 1960′s as a civilian in South Vietnam……I hasten to add of lowly position. But even we civilians then in that awful place “heard things” that made us wonder what was going on in far, far removed Washington D.C. Also, we knew we weren’t privy to the closed door meetings in far far away Washington D.C.
No Commander of any rank is unaware of the risks to his men, and must often weigh terrible alternatives under terrible conflicting and fast developing conditions which no training can prepare for all of the, what are sometimes smirkingly called “unexpected consequences”.
You critics should instead direct your scorn and contempt towards the civilian directors of the Military who set the policies which the Military are ordered to follow. They, in turn, have terrible decisions to make under terrible fast developing and unpredictable conditions.
Don’t be too shrill against “th’ Generals” unless you can come up with better alternatives…..with all the knowledge available at any particular previous time.
….an earlier attempt to reply didn’t make it through “the filter”, so I’m trying again here…
Your comment has absolutely no connection with the USAF I served in during the late 1950′s, and no connection with the Military I observed as a civilian in South Viet Nam in the 1960′s.
While there in that terrible, most complicated time we wondered sometimes just what was going on way back there in Washington D.C. I suspect that you’re much too young to have much knowledge of that awful era.
Remember that no Commander, regardless of rank, is ever inconsiderate of the dangers to his men.
You should re-direct your ill-informed ire and contempt instead towards the politically appointed civilian overseers of the Military in the Pentagon and the White House who set the priorities, and issue the directives which “th’Generals” are ordered to follow, and who decided on the locations to become involved in our generally unrecognized/unacknowledged War against Medieval Islam.
The easy-vocal critics of th’Generals should all be prepared to offer timely advice based upon their attendance at the closed door sessions at the several locations….and not have such opinionated advice delivered long after the fact with hindsight-filled contempt.
No – he is NOT out of order. He’s perfectly correct in his assessment.
I sure wish there were thumbs-up and thumbs-down options. Thumb up to Feral Cat and the supportive reply.
“Cross-cultural competence training “is basically equipping people with the skills to understand what culture is, how people use culture, how they interact with each other within their culture,” Ms. McGinn explained, “so that wherever they are deployed in the world or with host populations or with our allies, (they) understand that people operate differently based upon the cultural background they come from.” ”
Great. All that cultural diversity stuff sure helped the 51 US troops who have been murdered by Afghans since the first of this year, soldiers who were on joint training ops, preparatory to Barack’s “handover”.
General Casey at Ft. Hood seemed to be into it, too, letting the moron psychiatrist Nidal Hasan through to slaughter 13.
Cross-cultural competence training
From what I read of Libya, Hillary and Barack were demonstrating their respect for indigenous Libyan security by letting those guys do key jobs inside the consulate, the Libyan security guys who beat feet as the planned carnage got underway.
Join and support: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/ Study their promises to America. Share their “TEN ORDERS WE WILL NOT OBEY”
Just a sample:
1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
* * *
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.
* * *
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
* * *
10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
READ THEM ALL…YOU’LL BE CHEERING BY THE END…THEN JOIN; CONTRIBUTE; SHARE THEIR MESSAGE. God bless America, OUR TROOPS “GET IT”
I admire the troops that are willing to stand with the American people to protect our God given rights. I am sure this is one reason to have them dispersed around the globe fighting useless wars without the orders or materiel to do their jobs as they have been trained.
” the War on Terror, the War on Islamism, call it what you will (I certainly prefer the latter)”
I prefer neither one. Terror is a tactic and not by far the main one, and “Islamism” implies that it’s just some “Islamists” and not Islam and Muslims that are the problem, whereas nothing could be father from the truth.
Calling this The War On Islamism rather than The War On Terrorism is a step in the right direction, but I agree with you it is still a euphemism for the real war which is the war against Evil in the form of Islam. As Winston Churchill said of Muslims: “all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.”
The will to fight is the most important factor in any battle and that element is now in question in this battle for civilization itself.
Churchill had observations about that too: “Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
Obama despises Churchill and extolls the virtues of Islam. Is there anything more we need to know about him?
Perhaps, then, we should refer to our struggle as “The River War.”
I think you might be saying that with a bit of sarcasm, but Islam is no less dangerous now than it was when Churchill wrote the “River War” and his observations are much more accurate and honest than what we are getting from the Obama administration. We are being flooded with stupidity so maybe the “River War” would be an appropriate name for this conflict.
Or maybe it should be called “The Battle Against Willful Ignorance.”
Indeed.
I’d prefer “The Fight for Freedom”
What’s the difference between an Islamist and an Environmentalist? The props
What’s the difference between an Islamist and a Black Liberation Theorist? The props
What’s the difference between an Islamist and Code Pink? The props
What’s the difference between an Islamist and Fidel Castro? The props
All of the groups want to restrict your freedom and control every aspect of your life. The Muslims allege fealty to Allah, the Environmentalists to Gaia. The underlying message is the same – you will submit or else, it’s only the stage props that differ.
That is an important insight.
The “theology” of Islam, or of Black Liberation or a group such as Code Pink, is self-contradictory window dressing when it’s not wholly absent. Asking people to cope with that sort of pseudo-reasoning is asking quite a lot. Steer them to policy and note the parallels, and you can get somewhere.
The real similarity between an “Islamist” and an environmentalist, a Black Liberation Theorist, Code Pink,and Fidel Castro is they are all relatively recent, and probably destined to be short lived, phenomena.
“Islamist” is actually a creation of non Muslims who still can’t bring themselves to name the real enemy: Islam.
Islam itself, the real enemy, on the other hand has fourteen centuries of experience, a “prophet” a hate manual they and Obama call “The Holy Koran”, and the belief that they are called by an almighty power to destroy all other beliefs.
A much more formidable opponent.
Now, FeralCat, that’s more like it. Much better.
Let’s say that practicing, Mosque-attending, Koran-reading Muslims are either subversively against us, or they are apostates in the eyes of their co-religionists.
Hence, I like to use the analogy that these Muslims who like to be called “moderates” are in fact straddling a very, very thorny hedge very close to their genitals.
They’ve got to move very carefully.
That’s still not broad enough.
Islam is only a faction within the real war, which is the War on Freedom. That war has been waged since the American Revolution. As a matter of fact, Islam is by far the weakest faction within an alliance that includes the Russian oligarchs, the Chinese oligarchs, the European oligarchs, and the American left (most of whom will be killed since they will no longer be useful if Soros and his faction succeed).
Prior to that, a tiny elite ruled the world. The other 99.9%, in every era, every region, every country, every village, every city….were serfs and slaves, serving the rulers, who did nothing to earn their power, but had amassed the military might to retain it with no chance to be overthrown by anyone other than the ruling elite from another state or community.
The American Revolution broke that ironclad rule.
Soros, Putin, the Mullah’s, the goatherders, obama…they want that back. And there isn’t anything they won’t do to get it back.
Exactly!!! That is a direction that I wish Romney would go, let people know that it is not just the economy that is going down, it is our basic, pre-constitutional liberties as well. If the USA has gone so far to the left that more people would vote for their gov’t “freebies” than pure liberty, we are already done as a nation.
Adherents to the House of Obama are fundamentally and unalterably opposed to the survival of the Constitution of the United States, and most particularly it’s Bill of Rights. The House of Obama is based on the teachings of Karl Marx, Benito Mussolini, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the Queen of Hearts and Joe Isuzu. The House of Obama commands that democrats carry out mendacity, calumny and psychosis indefinitely against all opponents until the House of the Constitution, which is alien to The House of Obama, is not tolerated, and all Americans are brought under the complete domination of the House of Obama, where Obamariah is strictly enforced.
I just finished reading a story about the obama campaign redesigning the American flag (Fox). Someone from his campaign tried to put a pathetic spin on it. Anyone that thinks our current divider in chief isn’t one of the most dangerous threats to our liberty in our countries history has had a complete lobotomy.
Joe Isuzu? Good one, but I don’t know where he fits in the mix. He’s funny instead of angry.
Joe is a pathological liar.
I know Joe is a pathological liar like Obama. It’s good to lighten it up a little I guess, but Joe Isuzu is only in it for himself. He doesn’t really hurt anybody else.
We are all sick and tired of Obama and his scum bag adminstration. I predict that he is going down hard. All of the pundits have a vested interest in spin and polls to keep us watching their tired ass tv shows or blogs. This creep is the worst president with the worst record in history. Also flawed so badly that you must believe we are crazy to re-elect him. Sure our country may actually be over the edge now or approaching it but I think when you cut through the fog of the media lap dogs, there is a clear victory on the other side not unlike 2010 but bigger. Keep the faith because the other side is trying to spin it like Romney is over!
According to Karl Rove this morning on F&F, on Oct 27, 1980 Jimmy Carter was up by 6 or 7 points over Ronald Reagan. In case some of you youngsters don’t know the results, Carter made his concession speech while I was standing in line to vote in Salt Lake.
The exit polls had him beat so bad, he conceded before the polls closed in the Mountain West, West Coast and Hawaii.
I think that was when they started thinking maybe they shouldn’t make predictions on exit polls before the polls closed. The process was complete in 2004 when the exit polls showed John Kerry actually beating Bush.
Raymond Ibrahim tells the truth about the zi attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi which the Obama-shielding media won’t tell
Sexual abuse and degradation is a common tactic used against non-Muslims, especially women, as the repeatedly raped Lara Logan found.
Very believable that Ambassador Stevens’ body was desecrated by these cretins.
The photos/video of the sodomized, dying, and dead ambassador are for more troubling and offensive than the idiotic, amateurish Innocence of Muslims.
That the White House and the lamestream consensus media aren’t focusing on them and asking serious questions about how and why Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered by enraged Muslims on 9/11/12 is outrageous and a complete abdication of their respective responsibilities.
… far more troubling …
I can’t answer the question Mr. Simon; but I can draw your attention to the recently “discovered” video of Obama being interviewed in 1995 – the democracy with a small “d” video. Apart from proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is a neo-leftist collectivist; there is a telling moment when Obama speaks and refers to his having learned from his “father”, then immediately says “uh, my African father”. I immediately thought that this was a deliberate ploy to maintain the narrative of having Obama Sr as a father. I thank Dinesh D’Sousa because otherwise I’d have missed that very telling Obama moment … Obama was lying, and it shows.
It’s hard to imagine how O could have learned so much from his African father since the dude only saw him once or twice after he abandoned him at age 2.
But Dad’s anti-colonialist thing was certainly magnified by Barack.
In the video you reference, the collectivism and how “we” (meaning “they” the self-anointed élite) can control all aspects of society ekes through as babble brain rambles on
“It’s hard to imagine how O could have learned so much from his African father since the dude only saw him once or twice after he abandoned him at age 2″
Actually, there is NO evidence that BHO Sr. ever saw “Obama” after he was born. BHO Sr. and Anne Dunham never lived together as man and wife. Anne Dunham and her baby were in Seattle by mid-August 1961, and BHO never set foot there.
BHO Sr. didn’t “abandon” “Obama” when he was two. He never acted as his father, not once, and the probable reasons that he wasn’t.
D’Souza shows sympathy and understanding for Obama, so I hope that will spur independents to see the film.
A great movie, but everyone needs to see Dreams From My Real Father, as the book and DVD shows the likelihood of Obama being the son of Communist Frank Marshall Davis. 97 minute DVD. Some on YouTube.
Look at this! From NPR, no less. Especially pleased at the comments. I think most Americans think differently than the polls prescribe….
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/20/161450341/official-versions-diverge-over-u-s-consulate-attack
From the NPR article: “The divergence in accounts was at the center of a hearing on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. For the first time, a high-ranking intelligence official, [Matthew Olsen, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center] described the Benghazi attack as ‘terrorism’ and provided an on-the-record account of what the U.S. knows and doesn’t know about what took place over a number of hours on Sept. 11.”
Mr. Olsen’s oblique testimony, especially concerning “what the U.S. … doesn’t know” doesn’t inspire confidence in an agency which, it seems to me, should know more rather than less. This is the United States of America we’re talking about, not some two-bit, fly-by-night regime, though I’m beginning to wonder …
It’s disturbing “what the U.S. didn’t know,” what “specific intelligence” they weren’t privy to, which left Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were murdered completely vulnerable to, and unprotected from, the out-of-control rage and violence in the streets of Benghazi on 9/11/12.
It’s not as though there hadn’t been other acts of violence towards Western targets, including the U.S. consulate, in Benghazi in the months leading up to 9/11.
D’Souza’s film is very good. If the contents of “2016” were untrue media ‘fact-checkers’ would be all over it, but aside from the usual inane pot-shots from that quarter they have been largely silent, and with good reason. The last thing the MSM wants is for 2016’s fact-based content to garner the kind of publicity that would come from an honest debate about its merits.
Davelnaf, no need to check out the MSM fact checkers, just read the conservative media to find the faults in D’Souza’s thesis that should be obvious. Here’s the conservative columnist Rammesh Ponnoru, who writes for National Review:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1822/article_detail.asp
The Roots of Obama’s Rage, a more speculative and (perhaps therefore) readable book, by polemicist and King’s College president Dinesh D’Souza, has an enlarged form of the same problem. D’Souza’s theory is that Obama’s core political commitment is to his late father’s anti-colonialist ideology. That theory has frequently been criticized on the ground that Obama could not have been significantly influenced by a man he barely knew. This criticism is clearly mistaken, since Obama wrote an entire book about that influence. (Just read the title.) But if his program is peculiarly rooted in the Obama family psychodrama, why have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid consistently gone along with it? It is a question that D’Souza never entertains.
Nor does he ever really show that Obama has any “rage” to explain. (Even the cover image of a hostile Obama looks less enraged than irritated—perhaps with the reader for picking up the book.) D’Souza refers to Obama’s “suppressed fury.” Petulant, vain, deceptive, and cold he may be, but if he has any fury its suppression is more striking than its expression.
This is not the only false note in the book. “So far, conservative opposition to Obama has been shrill,” D’Souza writes. As he develops his thesis he proceeds to argue that Obama views the Lockerbie bomber as a hero of the fight against American imperialism, would prefer that we lose in Afghanistan, wants American power to be reduced, sees America as a rogue state (but isn’t anti-American!), has deliberately chosen the least effective means of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, and cares more about protecting terrorists from America than vice-versa. For him to characterize the run of conservatives for their strident tone seems, given these features of his book, unfair.
D’Souza continually insists that he has found the key to understanding Obama. Anti-colonialism “is the moral and intellectual foundation of his ideology,” and his policies are “incomprehensible without this intellectual landscape.” As an explanatory model, the theory is “powerful.”
Perhaps too powerful: It seems to explain everything. But the protean character of “anti-colonialism” does all the work. D’Souza never spells out its content. So the health-care plan and cap-and-trade are presented as “anti-colonialist,” rather than socialist, because they involve the government seizing power from rich white corporate types rather than directly nationalizing industry. But of course this was also true of the Clinton Administration’s health-care plan, and nobody attributed its design to Kenyan history.
Again and again the author attributes Obama’s positions to anti-colonialism when less exotic explanations would be given for any other politician who took the same positions. D’Souza claims that whereas Al Gore wants the whole world to accept lower living standards to prevent global warming, Obama is content to let the West, and especially the United States, make sacrifices while merely calling for others to act. But Gore, too, favors unilateral action combined with exhortation. Obama’s position is no more anti-Western than Gore’s.
Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program is identical to that of George W. Bush, at least in his second term. Why should we assume that Obama’s motives are more sinister than Bush’s? D’Souza sees Obama’s habit of presenting his own positions as moderate in comparison to two hypothetical extremes as an example of his “lactification,” by which he means his attempt to distance himself from the “angry black man” stereotype. But since it is a standard rhetorical trick often used by each of Obama’s immediate predecessors as president, why not see it as what it obviously is: an attempt to make the positions seem reasonable?
On two occasions in this short book, D’Souza notes that the president forced some banks to accept bailout funds and refused to let banks repay the funds when they considered themselves ready. It is of course within the realm of possibility that Obama wanted to use the funds as an excuse for extensive federal control of the banking industry, and wanted this control in order to avenge his father’s shade. But it is also possible that the administration believed that providing funds to sound and unsound banks alike would keep the markets from attacking beneficiaries and non-repayers. It may also have believed that without this policy barely solvent banks would be able to survive but would not be healthy enough to lend and thus aid the economic recovery. These views, discussed among banking-policy experts at the time as explanations for the administration’s actions, may have been misguided. But they may also have been sincerely held. D’Souza does not consider any alternative to his anti-colonialist theory, which may be why he finds that it fits the facts so often and so well.
By the time he explains that sending more troops to Afghanistan is another clever anti-colonialist gambit, one begins to wonder whether anything could falsify the theory. He sees the auto bailout as evidence that Obama views the autoworkers’ unions as victims of oppression by neo-colonialist CEOs. If Obama had let the companies sink, though, couldn’t the anti-colonialist theory have explained it away as his indifference to a symbol of American might?
Perhaps the real solution to the mystery of Obama is that there is no mystery at all. Obama’s political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that. Genus liberal, species academic, character type pragmatic: That classification seems adequate. His heart belongs to the Left, and his heart of hearts to Barack Obama.
His conventionality is a good thing for conservatism. One reason conservatism’s political fortunes rebounded so quickly after the 2008 election is that liberalism made its critique of President Bush too personal—a matter of his own alleged stupidity and closed-mindedness rather than of the conservative creed. If Americans reach the verdict that President Obama is a failure, it would be better for conservatism if they attributed that failure to the liberalism he shares with most of his party rather than to his personal quirks. The evidence suggests, too, that this attribution would be just.
Davelnaf, you don’t need MSM fact checkers to tear apart the gaping weaknesses in D’Souza’s thesis, all you have to do is read the CONSERVATIVE press to show how Dinesh is playing PT Barnum’s game. Looks like he’s even got Roger Simon, which wasn’t hard work. Here’s an article from the conservative columnist from the National Review, Rammesh Ponnoru, revealing the obvious errors in D’Souza neo-colonial thesis:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1822/article_detail.asp
The Roots of Obama’s Rage, a more speculative and (perhaps therefore) readable book, by polemicist and King’s College president Dinesh D’Souza, has an enlarged form of the same problem. D’Souza’s theory is that Obama’s core political commitment is to his late father’s anti-colonialist ideology. That theory has frequently been criticized on the ground that Obama could not have been significantly influenced by a man he barely knew. This criticism is clearly mistaken, since Obama wrote an entire book about that influence. (Just read the title.) But if his program is peculiarly rooted in the Obama family psychodrama, why have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid consistently gone along with it? It is a question that D’Souza never entertains.
Nor does he ever really show that Obama has any “rage” to explain. (Even the cover image of a hostile Obama looks less enraged than irritated—perhaps with the reader for picking up the book.) D’Souza refers to Obama’s “suppressed fury.” Petulant, vain, deceptive, and cold he may be, but if he has any fury its suppression is more striking than its expression.
This is not the only false note in the book. “So far, conservative opposition to Obama has been shrill,” D’Souza writes. As he develops his thesis he proceeds to argue that Obama views the Lockerbie bomber as a hero of the fight against American imperialism, would prefer that we lose in Afghanistan, wants American power to be reduced, sees America as a rogue state (but isn’t anti-American!), has deliberately chosen the least effective means of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, and cares more about protecting terrorists from America than vice-versa. For him to characterize the run of conservatives for their strident tone seems, given these features of his book, unfair.
D’Souza continually insists that he has found the key to understanding Obama. Anti-colonialism “is the moral and intellectual foundation of his ideology,” and his policies are “incomprehensible without this intellectual landscape.” As an explanatory model, the theory is “powerful.”
Perhaps too powerful: It seems to explain everything. But the protean character of “anti-colonialism” does all the work. D’Souza never spells out its content. So the health-care plan and cap-and-trade are presented as “anti-colonialist,” rather than socialist, because they involve the government seizing power from rich white corporate types rather than directly nationalizing industry. But of course this was also true of the Clinton Administration’s health-care plan, and nobody attributed its design to Kenyan history.
Again and again the author attributes Obama’s positions to anti-colonialism when less exotic explanations would be given for any other politician who took the same positions. D’Souza claims that whereas Al Gore wants the whole world to accept lower living standards to prevent global warming, Obama is content to let the West, and especially the United States, make sacrifices while merely calling for others to act. But Gore, too, favors unilateral action combined with exhortation. Obama’s position is no more anti-Western than Gore’s.
Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program is identical to that of George W. Bush, at least in his second term. Why should we assume that Obama’s motives are more sinister than Bush’s? D’Souza sees Obama’s habit of presenting his own positions as moderate in comparison to two hypothetical extremes as an example of his “lactification,” by which he means his attempt to distance himself from the “angry black man” stereotype. But since it is a standard rhetorical trick often used by each of Obama’s immediate predecessors as president, why not see it as what it obviously is: an attempt to make the positions seem reasonable?
On two occasions in this short book, D’Souza notes that the president forced some banks to accept bailout funds and refused to let banks repay the funds when they considered themselves ready. It is of course within the realm of possibility that Obama wanted to use the funds as an excuse for extensive federal control of the banking industry, and wanted this control in order to avenge his father’s shade. But it is also possible that the administration believed that providing funds to sound and unsound banks alike would keep the markets from attacking beneficiaries and non-repayers. It may also have believed that without this policy barely solvent banks would be able to survive but would not be healthy enough to lend and thus aid the economic recovery. These views, discussed among banking-policy experts at the time as explanations for the administration’s actions, may have been misguided. But they may also have been sincerely held. D’Souza does not consider any alternative to his anti-colonialist theory, which may be why he finds that it fits the facts so often and so well.
By the time he explains that sending more troops to Afghanistan is another clever anti-colonialist gambit, one begins to wonder whether anything could falsify the theory. He sees the auto bailout as evidence that Obama views the autoworkers’ unions as victims of oppression by neo-colonialist CEOs. If Obama had let the companies sink, though, couldn’t the anti-colonialist theory have explained it away as his indifference to a symbol of American might?
Perhaps the real solution to the mystery of Obama is that there is no mystery at all. Obama’s political views are consequential because he is the president, but they show little sign of being especially interesting aside from that. Genus liberal, species academic, character type pragmatic: That classification seems adequate. His heart belongs to the Left, and his heart of hearts to Barack Obama.
His conventionality is a good thing for conservatism. One reason conservatism’s political fortunes rebounded so quickly after the 2008 election is that liberalism made its critique of President Bush too personal—a matter of his own alleged stupidity and closed-mindedness rather than of the conservative creed. If Americans reach the verdict that President Obama is a failure, it would be better for conservatism if they attributed that failure to the liberalism he shares with most of his party rather than to his personal quirks. The evidence suggests, too, that this attribution would be just.
I saw “2016″ last weekend and I have to say, it was kind of creepy how most of the topics discussed in the movie have already come true. Remember, this movie was made well before the events took place in Libya and Egypt on 9/11 of this year. The movie makes plain Obama’s desire to simply “negotiate” with all Muslim (and especially arab) nations and that it would have a disastrous effect on not only the Middle East, but the entire world. And low and behold, the events of 9/11/2012 take place proving the movie’s point, that not only is Obama’s foreign policy a failure, but it’s actually encouraging the Islamists to take over the Middle East. And this policy also not only isolates Israel, but it alienates it as well. So if you go see the movie, be prepared to be stunned by the predictions that have already come true.
Obama cannot be re-elected. Ambassador John Bolton was aon Greta’s show last night on FOX News, and he was literally begging all Americans to PLEASE pay attention to foreign policy rather than just obsess about the economy. His point being that the next president is going to have one heck of a time trying to undo all the damage Obama has done, and that this damage could also lead to a major world war. PLEASE, listen to Bolton. The world is on fire right now and is at a tipping point. If Obama is re-elected and Iran does get a nuclear bomb, it will make our economic problems here at home look like nothing. We have a global war that’s staring us right in the face and Americans had better start paying attention. Now.
Please understand that your average lib lives in a cocoon of selfishness and a self centered life. They can be bothered with little outside the US borders. In fact there most pressing concerns are related to their own little self interests. Amnesty, gay marriage, free birth control, abortion, handouts. Me, myself and I.
Roger is right, “2016″ is a thought-provoking and powerful film.
The way we save and restore America is with one heart at a time.
So if you haven’t seen “2016″, make it a priority to do so. My wife and I both enjoyed the movie and the applause at the end. And as Roger suggested, bring a friend or two, or three. Word of mouth is truly an amazing thing.
Just finished reading a story about the divider in chief’s campaign redesigning the American flag. Someone from his campaign tweeted a spin on it but fell well short any sort of credible explanation (because there is no credible explanation). As one commenter put it, “now there’s a flag I could burn.”
I apologize for the above (second) post as my reply to FeralCat’s post hadn’t shown up yet and this little news tidbit is well worth shouting from the rooftops, in my opinion.
Haven’t seen the film here in Israel, so can’t comment much except to say that this D’Souza refuses to face facts about Islam (pretending the extremists have nothing to do with the uh Religion of Peace and the latter’s true peace and love dogma and traditions. Yes really) and he is an apologist for the 9-11 terror attacks. D’Souza’s response to 9-11 was that the jihadists attacked America because of America’s liberal decadence and it had nothing to do with Islam per se. Not surprised that Simon (playing to the big tent audience as is his wont) ignores this and other odious foul-ups by D’Souza re Islam (like his carrying water for the Islamist CAIR, a whole other thing).
I’m not going to bother searching out Dinesh’s comments re 9-11 but they were as stupid and harebrained as any liberal drivel in this regard (short of 9-11 conspiracy garbage). Easy enough to find for those so interested, if there are any… PJMedia couldn’t be bothered with any of this of course, all is forgiven or rather just plain ignored so long as D’Souza goes after Obama I guess.
I share your misgivings about D’Souza’s deplorable reaction to 9/11, in essence blaming us and somewhat taking the side of the Taliban in their pretexts. Not unsimilar to blaming the latest riots from the Muslim world on fill-in-the-blank…
Of course it is the relentless hatred espoused by the authoritative voices of Islam which lead to the hatred spewing from all Muslim communities.
But if D’Souza’s film is as powerful as advertised, then let’s put that issue aside for now and support him and the film. D’Souza is not perfect on the topic, nor are you, nor am I, so let’s not lose sight of the detail of his wrongness in this particular, but the big focus needs to be marshaling the weapon he creates… Frankly, if this film can help galvanize an electorate which failed to be roused by F&F, by “Obamacare”, by bullying and siding with terrorists on critcism of Islam, or by all the serial lies and apologies and titanic blunders, then I’ll forgive the man for his ignorance viz Islam and hail his work to the rafters.
Speaking (above) of remarks directly on the heels of 911 (one week later), you will find little or no distance between those offered by a relatively obscure Illinois State Senator and his position today vis à vis Islam.
Mohammed Atta and friends just lacked “empathy” as a function of “…a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair”
It’s up to we of the decadent west to “fix” all that.
The Muslims are running out of time. The greatest proven oil reserves are no longer in the Middle-East but lies in and around the American continent. Why do you think China is targeting oil sales here? This Muslim uprising has been going on ever since Europe and America have been over there begging for oil.
With Rommel losing in Africa, the Germans had to develop synthetic oil or lose the war quickly. It has always been about oil in the Middle-East.
The “War on Terror”, which is not even in use anymore, should really be called “The War Against Jihad”.
In a written script following the new and inflammatory cartoons published in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo yesterday, the publishers wrote that “there is nothing to negotiate with fascists” and referenced Islamists as “cons”, French slang for assholes.
I like “The War against Assholes”.
D’Souza really needs to make his film available streaming on Netflix before the election so that those folks who aren’t likely to go to a theater to see it, can watch it in the privacy of their own homes. Or better yet, have it shown on TV in late October.
You bet. Are you listening, Dinesh?
But getting something like “2016″ on the networks or even on cable could take some doing. But then let the viewers make up their own minds.
This 1995 video of Obama promoting his book “Dreams From My Father” is revealing, he states in the video, he inherited his fathers dreams. I doubt Dinesh saw this otherwise, he would have included it in his movie. Worth a click…
http://hillbuzz.org/the-collectivist-president-27325
“Perhaps the real solution to the mystery of Obama is that there is no mystery at all.”
Clint Eastwood came closest with “the biggest fraud ever perpetrated onto the American people”
I do think the dude has been way overly analyzed and that, like most narcissists, he is fundamentally insecure and, as an extension of that insecurity as well as early conditioning, clings to a solid block of dogma like a drowning man to a life raft.
(oops that sounds like anal-ysis)
Just get him off the national stage.
There are two terrifying phenomena in play at the same time; both are probably true; and both are pointing to the rapid destruction of this country, and shortly thereafter, civilization.
The first is the willful coverup of the obama administrations clear effort to subvert this country in every way conceivable, across the map. This can only be explained by realizing that the msm is simply brainwashed.
The second is the apparent willful decision by the public to ignore the painfully obvious. There are many factors that go into that, including the criminality of the msm for hiding the truth. But it’s more than that: class warfare, greed, stupidity, revenge…the list is long.
The odds of D’Souza or anything penetrating the fog are becoming even longer as more and more outrages become more and more clear. If what is plainly obvious is ignored at this point, nothing short of nuclear weapons exploding over LA and NYC will get through to these people. Like infants, they can’t or won’t think even one day into the future. They want what they want now, NOW.
The only hope for November is that 100% of people who have grown into adults in the country vote, and that the perpetual children are just too lazy to bother.
If that doesn’t work, it will require force, and frankly, I doubt that the communal will exists to enact it.
“The only hope for November is that 100% of people who have grown into adults in the country vote, and that the perpetual children are just too lazy to bother.”
The MSM (which Ben Stein aptly termed “The Ministry of Truth”) hopes the adults you cite won’t show up. Why all the polls (with Democrat-bloated samples) that tell us Obama is a shoe-in? “Mitt is an inherent loser,” they parrot. Were the 2010 mid-terms an illusion? Did those voters in their hearts really desire the Prince of Fools, the MSM’s messiah, to reign unchecked?
You know the answer. Vote en masse on NOV. 6.
After all we did fund and train and build them! Our Government! With our tax dollars!
Reality Check: One on One with President Obama, Why Is The U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrerl8EwqH0&feature=plcp
DoJ silences Obama associate Daniel S. Mahru with his freedom
http://illinoispaytoplay.com/2012/09/20/doj-silences-obama-associate-daniel-s-mahru-with-his-freedom/
D’Souza’s movie should be put on DVD and distributed free of charge to millions of voters in swing states.
The DVD, “Dreams From My REAL Father” is being sent for free to over a million households in swing states, compliments of director Joel Gilbert. (Someone opined that the Postal Service has been ordered not to deliver them, but to destroy them. I hope this is just a rumor.) I’m not in a swing state, so I’m waiting for my 5 copies to be delivered from Amazon.
Doing the same with “2016″ is conceivable.
“The Hope And The Change,” which was shown at the RNC and DNC, is being aired 16x between now and November. Its first showing was on an obscure cable station (DirecTV), and I would have had to pay an additional $14.99/mo. just to watch it. I’ve seen trailers, and I think it’s yet another “must see.” I hope it shows up on a more conventional channel.
Guess we are finding out that ISLAM is the great deception and we were being duped.
Now can we find enough people to stand against this assault on our country.
Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Qur’an (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers
And because ISLAM is supposed to lie in their conquest, how does one believe a people who’s basis of what they do is shrouded in lies and deceptions to accomplish that.
Because they (the secularist left) are arrogant enough to believe that they can put the Islamic Djinni back in the bottle after the Hordes have slaughtered all the Jews and Christians.
They think they can buy them off.
Obama has hurried the ME and the poor Muslims down the road from which there is no easy return. “Dark Ages” is a proper way to describe the abhorrent cultures being nurtured there. As they observe their failure, their leaders scold them for not being obedient enough. If Allah were happy, things would be better! Killing an infidel, storming an embassy, anything but holding oneself accountable for immoral actions. Blindness and darkness both result in chaos.
I agree with the basic premise of this statement, but I think Obama’s “autobiography” would be better entitled, “Dreams From My Mother.” Obama’s mama clearly indoctrinated young Barak/Barry in his beliefs in her ex-husband’s name. She was the driving influence, marrying Lolo Sattoro, dumping him as he became more and more capitalist.
Geez, man, didn’t you learn anything from all the talk about narratives, Obama’s fabrications in his books to tell a story, the opportunism of Obama when politically threatened by his own beliefs? He’s telling a story, and a false story, about his aims and goals. But collectivism is central to both Obama and Pelosi, and probably Reid, too, if the old geezer would ever take enough time to think about it rather than his own power. They’ve made a little communalist non-aggression pact, to advance their various agendas, which may be slightly different, but which contain major similarities. It takes only a half-wit’s measure of imagination to see that.
Please see the link to video I have above (comment#22), it is Obama in his own words admitting, he inherited his father’s dreams and also recognizes his mothers influence. Man, I miss Breitbart, we have to step up our game to inform others.
Agree with poster above. Obie has been over-analyzed. He’s a narcissist/leftist with a plan to empower the Third World, including the Muslim part. That’s it.
Dennis Miller’s segment on O’Reilly pretty much said it all. Just remove him via ballot…..get rid of this bunch..
Have there been any pics of D’Souza being led out in handcuffs yet? Has he gone into hiding so the Brownshirts can’t find him?
I’m waiting for the movie to come out on Amazon and DVD. I hope it comes out on DVD before November, people need to see it before the election.
People need to see it before it disappears from the theaters. Here, in my deep-blue state, it has been in theaters for at least 4 weeks. I’m surprised (and delighted) that it lasted more than a week here! Going to the theater the week it came out was a great experience. The house was packed. At the end, there was a moment of dead silence, and then loud applause. Then, someone yelled, “Don’t forget to vote in November!” which was followed by cheering.
If it’s no longer playing in a theater near you, watch for the DVD and/or Netflix, which I’m pretty confident you’ll be able to access.
Many of the so-called moderates still regard Obama as a good guy from the American mainstream. Whey are not receiving information to disabuse them of this notion. Why hasn’t a well-funded superPAC bought the rights to the film in order to print the film en masse for distribution to all voters?
New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism ← return to Inside Politics By Victor MortonApril 30, 2012
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/apr/30/new-obama-slogan-has-long-ties-marxism-socialism/
Always remember: D’Souza was a WFB acolyte and Mrs. Buckley didn’t make no dumb babies!
If Mr. D’Souza had been born Brahmin (American Brahmin, that is, not Indian Brahman, which, for all I know, he is), he’d be running NR right now.
Well, now that he’s got a tiny sinecure, he’s showing his fangs. WFB may have picked several weenies, but he hasn’t picked an idiot to my knowledge.
Somewhere in Heaven, WFB is clapping heartily. And rethinking Rich Lowry, who can boast a score of over 200 on the universal weeny scale.
How about Romney supporters joining hands in a human chain across the country, from sea to shining sea? Or even the good people of Ohio, next week, since Romney will be there, coming together in a chain from the Ohio to Lake Erie. When the power structure owns the media, public meetings and demonstrations are more important.
The people of the Baltics formed a human chain across all three countries in the early 90s when they were struggling for freedom from Russia–a story well told in the documentary “The Singing Revolution.”
Saw 2016 and recommend it to all here. Another film I think is definitely worth seeing is “The Last Ounce of Courage”.
I would have to say that anyone who believes in the greatness of this country and the promise it still holds, ought to see and recommend both to friends, family, coworkers, etc.
If there is a need for ‘sensitivity’ training I submit that this need is not for the military. They are to break things and kill people at need. Those who would point them and tell them to go are those in need of these refinements.
Maybe the film will get a wider audience once it’s nominated for an Academy Award. HaHaHaHa. Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
“Liberals know if they scratch the surface of Islam all the misogyny and homophobia will come pouring out, not to mention the tenets of Sharia with its attendant superiority of religious law to state law and the consequent abolition of the separation of church and state — all values and goals supposedly anathema to the liberal mind. Trying to reconcile those things with the policies of their hero-president would make their heads explode, so better not to know about them.”
“Liberals” have the perfect answer to any of those things: they just pretend that you didn’t say any of it. Case closed.