The Great Film….2016 Obama’s America

Click on immediately below this paragraph to reach the PowerLine review of 2016 SHOWING THIS WEEKEND AT SELECTED THEATERS IN THE TWIN CTIIES.  Immedeately click on the video to view the trailer to this outstanding film which illustrates the real Barack Hussein Obama in his quest to divest America of its world leadership and why he had undertaken the task.

It is a powerful introduction to a powerful movie……a masterpiece worthy of today’s  noble conservative cause to save America’s free and open society.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/2016-the-movie.php

2016, the Movie

by John Hinderaker at PowerLine:                             (sent by fellow conservative, Brian Ross)

This afternoon my wife, our 16-year-old daughter and I went to see Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 at a nearby theater. I believe the film opened here yesterday; the crowd was about average for 5:00 on a Saturday afternoon. The movie is very good. It has several virtues, starting with the fact that it is only an hour and a half long. (These days there is no premise so slight, no theme so insubstantial, no plot so thin but what the film takes 2 1/2 hours or more to unroll.)

2016 is beautifully shot and edited, as you would expect from a film that is produced by the same guy, Gerald Molen, who produced such movies as Rain Man, Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. It is actually entertaining, a quality not achieved by every documentary. My 16-year-old enjoyed it, so I think its appeal will be broad. Dinesh D’Souza, who appears frequently and is the principal narrator (Barack Obama is the other narrator) is a likable figure, and the similarities and contrasts he draws between himself and Obama are revealing and effective. It would be a great thing if many millions of people see 2016, as it would tell most people a great deal that they do not already know about our president. Here is the trailer:

 http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/2016-the-movie.php

 

 I have not read D’Souza’s book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, on which 2016 is based, but I have heard Dinesh lecture on it twice. In a nutshell, his theory is that Obama’s world-view can best be understood by reading his memoir, Dreams From My Father, and taking it seriously. Barack Obama Jr., Dinesh argues, has assumed the anti-colonialist, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-free enterprise perspective of his father, which explains much of his otherwise-puzzling conduct as president.

I think Dinesh is on to something here, and his premise helps explain, for example, why Obama returned Churchill’s bust, backs Argentina in the conflict over the Falklands, and tilts toward the Palestinians. My question about Dinesh’s theory is whether it explains the essence of Obama’s philosophy, or is more of a footnote, or, put another way, the icing on the cake. Without doubt, Obama’s rather tortured youth is an important part of his persona. His bigamist father, an “intellectual” who was in fact a repellent alcoholic poseur, abandoned his family when Barack Jr. was an infant, and Barack only saw him once thereafter. Further, Obama’s upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii no doubt lends a certain exoticism to his thinking.

But do we really need Barack Obama Sr. to account for his son’s hostility toward America and its traditional beliefs and values? I don’t think so. Obama came of age, over a period of decades, in an environment that can charitably be described as hard-left. His father and mother were both socialists or worse. His maternal grandfather selected a mentor for young Barry who was a long-time member of the Communist Party USA. The socialist New Party listed him as a member. His friend, colleague and fundraiser Bill Ayers is a terrorist who says he wishes he had set off more bombs. His college professor Edward Said was the leading intellectual voice of those who want Israel destroyed. His law school mentor Roberto Unger was too far left for Brazil’s socialist party, and was sent back to Harvard, where he declined all interviews lest he endanger Obama’s electoral prospects. The minister who converted him to Christianity was Jeremiah “Gad damn America” Wright. You can go on and on.

My point is that the cornerstone belief of 20th and 21st century American leftism is that the United States is too rich and too powerful. This is not a perspective that is unique to Barack Obama; rather, it is common to essentially every modern American leftist. (I say this in part based on personal experience and observation.) To take just one of countless examples, Hillary Clinton marinated in the view that America needs to be cut down to size just as much as Obama did.

That being the case, Obama’s efforts in office to weaken America are consistent not just with his father’s ideology, but with the entire culture of American leftism. That he is no outlier is demonstrated by the fact that essentially the entire Democratic Party has cheered everything he has done in office, from trying to socialize health care to apologizing overseas for the U.S. So in my view, Obama’s unique background and his tortured relationship with his absent father do help to explain some otherwise-puzzling actions, like returning Churchill’s bust. But they are not needed to account for the broader failure of his administration’s policies. Put another way, the oft-stated belief that Hillary Clinton would have been a materially better president is wrong.

Of course, that doesn’t address the ultimate point of D’Souza’s movie: what will happen if we give Obama another four years? Obama’s urging Russia’s president to tell Vladimir Putin that in a second term he will have more “flexibility”–flexibility to sell out American interests, apparently, or what was the point?–is chilling. It certainly could be that in a second term, Obama’s anti-colonialist (i.e., anti-you and me) impulses could be fully unleashed, in a way that would make his first term look successful by comparison. Let’s not take that chance! If you haven’t seen 2016, I am pretty sure you will enjoy it, and if your undecided friends haven’t seen it, they should.

JOE UPDATES from Lower Manhattan (4:08 P.M.): Several of Manhattan’s more noted cineplexes are screening 2016, including the Union Square Regal, where the 2pm showing resulted nearly in a full house. It looks as though 2016 will gross around $7MM this weekend, which is a strong showing. As ever in New York, tourists stood out like a sore thumb, and the auditorium was, at least, half-tourist. The film was met with applause at the end (though I was the only one booing when Dartmouth College was entitled “Dartmouth University” in the closing credits). I generally agree with John’s sentiments. It is a forceful and entertaining film, and the conceit of a global chase for the prime mover of Barack Obama worked very nicely. Dinesh and John turned the former’s research into a very high quality narrated essay.

As usual with conservative art, it bothers me that we cannot produce professional looking products. Why was 2016 in 30p instead of 24p? Why did the colors look so bloated? Why does Dinesh’s microphone distort? Why was the stock footage so painfully stock-ish? Why was the stock music so painfully stock-ish? Why should the film switch back-and-forth between Dinesh reading from Dreams of My Father and the dreamer himself? These errors diminish the transporting quality of a film. Conservatism needs a better farm team in music and visuals.

Yet Dinesh and John put together such a clever yarn that the audience seemed (as I glanced around) transfixed. The story really picks up once we see Dinesh’s now-famous interview with George Obama, than whom there couldn’t be a kinder soul. He has every right to be cross with his neglectful, power-hungry brother; instead he calmly espouses a pro-western view while shrugging off Barack Obama’s neglect. The most powerful theme of Dinesh’s is that the motivations of Barack Obama lie far from Selma or Little Rock. It is not the oppression of slavery which motivates him, but the belief, mistaken, that, instead of earning it, the colonial west has stolen its wealth from its former imperial subjects. To which George Obama is the living counterproof: he observes that the nations that are healthy and wealthy are those that clung to the British yoke a bit longer, hated British ideas a bit less. Barack Obama is not come to redeem America’s genuine sin of past racism, but to redeem her fabricated sin of colonialism. And that’s why Barack Obama is, in spite of it all, quite a gullible man if not a stupid one. His talents really ought to have him in the sociology section of the Barnes & Noble instead of the White House.”

Comment:   We all should be proud of Dinesh D’Souza for his profoundly masterful research creating this documentary……..a true documentary.    His claims for the rise of Saint Obama are absolutely accurate.    Although I smelled the rat from the beginning, because of my studies which took me to Marxist lands and Marxist history and habits, I was hoping I’d be wrong.

Barack Hussein Obama was a Marxist before he entered the White House, and IS a Marxist to this day, and I suspect will be a Marxist until the day he dies.    His behavior before the presidency fooled only the wishful thinkers.

Shelby Steele’s Beautiful Words Describing his Discovery of Conservatism

It is my present day  prejudice that American black culture, mostly through its Christian heritage has created today’s most beautiful American  oral language regarding certain topics.    It is also my observation that  America’s most disgusting language is also freely exercized and advanced by male street blacks  who operate their lives outside of their Christian heritage.

A case in point is Shelby Steele’s explanation of his personal transformation from Liberal to conservative in our American milieu.   Certain language for the brain as certain great landscape gardens for the eye,  can rise to the great music for the ear by  Beethoven…..and this is one of those  compositions:

SHELBY STEELE;

“ What drew me to conservatism years ago was the fact that it gave discipline a slightly higher status than virtue.  This  meant it could not be subverted by passing notions of the good.  It could be above moral vanity.  And so it made no special promises to me as a minority.  It neglected me in every way except  as a human being who wanted freedom. 

Until my encounter with conservatism, I had only known the  racial determinism of segregation on the one hand and of white liberalism on the other;   two varieties of white supremacy in which I could only be dependent and inferior.

The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society.  And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism; human rather than racial dignity.

“Conservatism “seeks the discipline of ordinary people rather than the virtuousness of extraordinary people.  The challenge for conservatives today is simply self-acceptance, and even a little pride in the way we flail away at problems with an invisible hand.”

(The above article was a writing by Mr. Steele printed in the Wall Street Journal.)

Shelby Steele’s statement is a male statement……from a male mind filled with male drives.

The single human female generally , however, doesn’t give a damn about liberty.   She demands security….and therein lies the rub endangering any civilized democratic free enterprise system.

‘2016 Obama’s America’ a Winner in Truth and Quality, but Depressing and Worrisome about America’s Future

Box office shocker.

2016 Obama’s America at #3?

posted at 8:31 pm on August 25, 2012 by Jazz Shaw  at HotAir:

We all know the rules when it comes to political films, right? They’re just not worth sinking your money into them because people don’t watch. With the sole exception of one “documentary” by Michael Moore, they don’t cover their own costs and people don’t turn out to the theater for them. This is particularly true if you try to produce one from a conservative point of view in the liberal lock-down atmosphere of Hollywood. Well, hold on to your hats. It looks like the the very unflattering critique of the current administration, 2016 Obama’s America, is set to come in at number three this weekend and turn a profit in the first 24 hours since its wide release. (It actually premiered six weeks ago and was previously in limited release.)

As predicted Millenium/Lionsgate’s The Expendables 2 will finish in first place Friday and this weekend. It’s followed by Universal’s The Bourne Legacy in second place and the Rocky Mountain Pictures’ documentary 2016 Obama’s America in third place after starting out Friday #1. That’s stunning because it’s playing in a 1/3 less theaters across North American than the other wide release actioners. (See below for more details). However, its hot pre-sales have made the pic frontloaded, and its ranking will fall steeply by end of Sunday. But its new cume after this weekend could make it the #1 conservative documentary (ahead of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’s $7.7M). The success of the anti-Obama pic comes on the eve of the Republican National Convention August 27-30.

In case you missed it, here’s the trailer.   Click for the HotAir article and the trailer here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/25/box-office-shocker-2016-obamas-america-at-3/

Entertainment Weekly explains why the math involved in this film’s rising status is so puzzling to industry insiders, and not just because of the content.

You see, normally, when a film’s theater count increases, the amount of money it’s earning in each theater decreases. This is the standard performance pattern for a limited release and follows common supply/demand logic.

Here’s how things have gone for 2016: Obama’s America, though: Three weekends ago, 2016 earned $34,133 out of 10 theaters, which gave it a per theater average of $3,413 — not all that remarkable for a limited release. When it expanded into 61 theaters the next weekend, its per theater average did a funny thing: it jumped up to $5,202. Last weekend, the film experienced an even bigger expansion, into 169 theaters, and again, its per theater average substantially leapt up to $7,365.

Let’s be clear: this almost never happens.

Let’s be clear about something else that “almost never happens.” It’s a movie which is critical of Democrats ever seeing the light of day outside the production studio. This film only cost $2.5M to make and it looks like it’s going to have taken in nearly four times that amount by the time the convention kicks off. It’s a fairly remarkable story.

Comment:   Every American interested in our culture, government, presidency,  history, and the nature of Barack Hussein Obama,  should….MUST…..see this exceedingly fair and penetrating story of  the sculpting of our present president and conductor of America’s disastrous future if reelected.

In addition…..Modern Americans no longer follow rules, especially those regarding language.   A point in case is the following sentence from the above article:             “That’s stunning because it’s playing in a 1/3 less theaters across North American than the other wide release actioners.”   

Now the error could be a typo.   Or the author could be 78 years old and not able to see what he has written, yet  knows the correct communication  regarding less versus fewer.  

I had great elementary schools  teachers, almost all old maids who knew every rule of many books and tried hard to share them with us students ‘or else’, may God Bless their memory. 

Samples:   One has less money, not fewer money, but has fewer dollars not  less dollars.

                      A nation can have fewer people, but has less population than another country.

                       Today’s Democrats have less intelligence, and so,   fewer intelligentsia,  because they have fewer brains AND  less brains.   (There are always exceptions in Nature.   Without these mistakes, Nature cannot  would never changel.   But, there is a bit of difference in the meaning of that last example, isn’t there.    That difference arises from the difference between the usage of fewer and less.

According to Marxist expert George Orwell, Marxist carve public language to a bare minimum of words  to reduse the citizen’s ability to think clearly and  so lose the ability to express  feelings subtlely and accurately.    Without certain language common folk would be more likely to obey :”the leading from behind people like Lord Obama.  

Modern American  folk know around 30% fewer words to use or recognize   than two generations ago.    Swearing is commonly used now to replace a whole host of words which carried a world of subtle differences to describe  bull shit……or fucking something……and so on of the modern Liberals lists of preferred language…..language to be spoken equally.

We live in the Marxist age in American History…..the Obama Age.     If one has a larger, more versatile vocabulary  than someone else, it  suggests  to the Marxist  language teacher  that such a person is more equal than someone else.    America’s Marxist teachers cannot tolerate inequality at any level.

What are our Lefties “thinking” and Writing, these days?

Collecting information and writing these articles is very therapeutic for me as I watch my beloved America rot and collapse from sloth and disarray of learning, glut and its enormous  body fat, narcissism and the villain foreign to American and the word honesty, Barack Hussein Obama.

When I leave my computer, I breath better, stand up strighter,  hold my head higher and can go back to the work and art that I love, landscape gardening.   

I now realize that I throroughly enjoy this routine under the circumstances with this alien American, Obama, still in power, still raving dishonesties, racism, and national division…….instead of problem solving,  a natural male drive which this president seems to be missing…….together with love for freedom and his country.

I already feel better as I plan to view the movie Obama’s America 2016.    But first I seek something Obamaish to read to stimulate my awakeness.    I found the following written by a lefty female at a blog I have never heard of listed at realclearpolitics before.

The realclearpolitics title to the female article is:  “GOP IS A RADICALIZED FRINGE PARTY”.  

I don’t mind being called a radical, for I have been called much worse, especially from those who oppose my writing anything at all, Obamalings.   

Here is what I found:

Political Animal

Blog

August 25, 2012 9:26 AM On the eventual (near) inevitability of Ryan/Paul (or some equally ghastly presidential duo) By Kathleen Geier

Though this will basically be a total Debbie Downer of a post, I’ll kick it off on a more upbeat note: I do believe that despite our still-terrible economy, despite polls that show the electorate to be closely divided, President Obama will win re-election this fall. It’s likely to be close, but I think that the economy is improving just enough (albeit just barely), Mitt Romney is a rotten enough candidate, the racial demographics of the country are continuing to change in a way that favor Democrats, and Barack Obama is a decent campaigner. All those factors seem to augur a Democatic win.

But sadly, America can’t stave off disaster forever. The Republicans have a very good shot at winning the presidency in 2016, and if they don’t do it then, the odds will favor them even more strongly in 2020. The sad fact is, we can’t hold back these jagoffs forever. This country is a two-party system and that’s how we roll, with the White House switching back and forth between the two parties. Even under the most optimistic assumptions, with a country that is in much, much better shape by 2016, with an economy that is purring along and a new health care system that succeeds brilliantly and is more wildly popular than even its most fervent supporters dared to hope, it won’t necessarily redound to the credit of the Democratic party. After all, after eight years of Clinton, the country appeared to be in pretty good shape, but that didn’t prevent the Republicans from winning in 2000 (or, in reality, coming close enough so they could steal it).

None of this would matter terribly much if we still had your father’s — of maybe by now, it’s more like your grandfather’s — G.O.P. But what we’re actually dealing with is a radicalized, hyper-partisan, lunatic fringe party that keeps blazing new trails in wingnuttery. In 2010, I thought that Christine O’Donnell was firmly ensconced in the record books with a Wingnut Achievement Award for national candidates that would not soon be equaled. But just two years later here we have Todd Akin, going for the wingnut gold. Step aside, Christine O’Donnell — you have just been outwingnutted!

The Republicans, unfortunately, will inevitably be elected to the White House again, most likely in four or eight years. And once they’re there, they are likely to be even more conservative and hyper-partisan than George W. Bush’s administration was. Like Dubya’s crew, they will break longstanding political norms and traditions and move the country’s center of gravity ever even more sharply to the right. And then the next Democratic administration will, like the Obama administration, mostly be preoccupied with making sure nothing gets any worse. If they can enact even incremental progressive reforms it will be a miracle.

What could change this? Certainly, if the Republicans lose a couple more elections, and maybe lose them by substantial margins, the party elders may decide to put the breaks on the radicals and reposition the party closer to the center. But for the Republicans to lose, the Democrats have to win. And currently, what the Democrats have to offer voters is limited. Features of our constitution like the electoral college, the U.S. senate, and the non-parliamentary system make change dauntingly hard and favor the interests of smaller, more conservative states. The filibuster reinforces those malignant tendencies. Corporate interests completely control the Republicans and exert a significant, though not total, influence over the Dems, so economic policies that are in the interest of the 99% have a tough time being enacted. And there’s more, but you get the idea. I don’t see either of those structures — our constitution, or our largely unregulated form of capitalism — changing any time soon. Both those structures favor Republican radicalism and obstructionism, and hurt Democrats, particularly any Democratic attempts to represent the interests of working people.

I do, however, see two rays of hope for the Democrats. One is demographic. As Jonathan Chait and others have argued, the increasing non-whiteness of the U.S. population is fertile ground for Democrats, and could be the basis of an “emerging Democratic majority.” The Republican electorate is, increasingly, older, whiter, and more male; in a a recent WSJ/NBC poll, an astonishing zero percent of African-American voters were supporting Mitt Romney. As recently as 2000, the G.O.P. was trying to reach out to more nonwhite voters, particularly Latinos, but with anti-immigrant legislation in Arizona and elsewhere, those efforts have come to a screeching halt.

This seems astonishingly short-sighted. Of course, this may be a temporary strategy on the part of the G.O.P., driven by the fact that we have an African-American president, so prying away nonwhite votes from him is especially difficult, and ginning up white resentment of him is an easy way to motivate the Republican base. But Latino voters are unlikely to soon forget those “show us your paper” laws, or the racist treatment many conservatives dished out towards Sonia Sotomayor. Certainly in California, the anti-immigrant zealotry of the Republican party has led to a sharp decline in the party’s fortunes there. Could the same pattern repeat itself in the U.S. as a whole? Let’s hope so!

On the other hand, political coalitions change, parties adapt, and demographics is not destiny. I would think that the strategists of the Republican party are smart enough to figure a way around this, and to be more inclusive of at least some groups or subgroups of nonwhites. We should also keep in mind that who counts as “white” is historically contingent. The Irish, after all, became white; perhaps one day the Latinos will, as well.

Other than demographics, the other hope I see for the Democrats (and the country) — and it is, alas, an exceedingly vague one — is a mass political movement. I am of course disappointed that Occupy didn’t do more, but it did achieve some positive things. It changed the political discourse and at long last, shone the political spotlight on economic inequality. I think it also led Obama to toughen up his rhetoric and to pull back from further damaging budget negotiations with the Republicans.

The problem with a mass movement is, I don’t see, structurally, where it will come from, and what will sustain it. Of course Occupy came seemingly out of nowhere as well, so maybe another movement will take form unexpectedly, learn from Occupy’s mistakes, and build on it from there. There is always that hope. Sadly, though, from where I stand, I don’t see that happening. At least not anytime soon.

What I do see is more G.O.P. extremism and the enactment of more reactionary policies, and Democrats, when they do get in there, frantically plugging holes in the dike to keep things from being worse. They’ll win some important battles, but I think the G.O.P. is poised to win the war. And sadly, I don’t see this dynamic changing for the foreseeable future. So as profoundly relieved as we will all be if we dodge the Mitt Romney bullet and President Obama gets re-elected this fall, our luck won’t hold out forever. Come 2012 or 2020, the band may well be playing “Hail to the Chief” to President Paul Ryan or (even more ghastly) Rand Paul.

But cheer up — during the inauguration you can all come over to my place for a hot cup of hemlock soup!

Further comment:   It is important to know what Lefty ‘thinkers’ are up to.

 

One learns to  spot lefty female instructing.   They are pretty good at giving you today’s statistics before they begin to twist them.   The American shelefty firmly believes that today is forever.   They are proud 100% of American blacks vote for her fellowess lefties.   They are proud her Obama panders to collect his votes based of  racist intimidation, lies  and division.    Lefties  these light but mean female thinkers are, never think about consequences for thoughts and deeds for tomorrow is a guy thing.

 

The demographics Lady Kathleen of the Left refers to above  showing 100% black American culpability voting  for Marxist Obama might be accurate this 2012.    These voters, the living and the dead occupy voting booths in the  ONE PARTY BLACK PLANTATIONS OF MOST MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS IN OUR COUNTRY.   These are places where marriage, fathers,  civilized family upbringing, peace and respect for others,  is not found ‘a dime a dozen’….or ‘two for a penny’….choose your economics as you please.

 

I, however, being a guy, believe in the inevitabity of change.   What we do today changes tomorrow…..for the good and the bad.   

 

The American black will discover some day the slave that he and she have   become in the modern Democrat Party;  that they have  been maintained to be intellectually, politically and economically adolescent  in these urban plantations for their voting power.   

 

  They, as my American brothers and sisters still long after I am dead, will see the light despite  their miseducation and resulting degradation and begin to recognize the sins of  the Obamas of their world and begin to rise out of the  muck.  

 

Marxism is not a pleasant way of living for the civilized.

Anita Moncrief Speaks…indicating there is still HOPE for a free America

MUST SEE!!!  COMPELLING!! …..was the headline of an email sent to me by friend and fellow conservative, Mark Waldeland.  

I followed instructions and, well, found the video a ‘MUST SEE!!!   COMPELLING!!    and very uplifting, encouraged that there are still honest folks in the American community seeking honesty from others.

Our Joan of Arc is Anita Moncrief, a former employee at ACORN.   She has a story or two to tell about ACORN and its conection with the present president, Barack Hussein Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/3CmkbShVqNA?feature=player_embedded

You can select Part II of Ms Moncrief’s speech above after the end of Part I or click on below:

These go together.Watch them in order.Part Ihttp://www.youtube.com/embed/3CmkbShVqNA?feature=player_embeddedPart IIhttp://www.youtube.com/embed/gy6odnqyLeU?feature=player_embedded