Saturday, September 01, 2012


Recently saw the movie.   D'Souza does a fairly good job making his case that indeed, Obama is currently living the dream of his father, and it's not necessarily an American dream.   Some observations...

In scanning the audience (it was mostly full in a reasonably large theater) I might have been one of the youngest there.  And I'm not that young.   Just wild guessing but I'm sure that amongst the group a lot of people were probably familiar with the various storylines about Ayers, Wright and Davis.  If D'Souza's movie is to enlighten anyone it will have to draw a younger audience.  I felt almost uncomfortable even eating popcorn during the show as if it was disrespectful or something (I don't get movie popcorn that often so to heck with that perception) since nobody else was consuming that I could tell.

Something else that lept out was how good we have it in America compared to the Third World.  It's not a mystery, just something average Americans don't think about.  It's what drives some liberals--surely Stanley Anne Dunham being one of them--to do something about it.  And there's nothing wrong with wanting to help your fellow man.  There's nothing wrong with seeing abject poverty, hopelessness and brutality and wanting to stop it.  The question is how best to help. 

And therein lies the movie.  D'Souza, a product of Third World parents, sees America as the last best hope for the planet precisely due to our system of rights (coming from a Creator not men) while Obama--the product of one Third World parent--see America as the problem.   The dream, the change, is to rectify that problem by changing America, not the Third World.   D'Souza sees it exactly the opposite, and makes the case with several growing economies around the world who've embraced a more capitalistic style. 

What kept swirling through my brain while watching all of this was the idea that it took a feature-length movie to even posit the question, a question the media should have debated long ago.  It still looms.  The GOP just did a great job of clarifying their position on it, including Clint's strange conversation with the chair.  Now, will the Democrats own it?     


Right Truth said...

We had a similar experience when we saw the movie. It was a 2:30 afternoon viewing, the theater was about 1/3 - 1/2 full, mostly what looked like retired White adults, maybe three men in their 20's, and hubby and I. I'm betting most of them already knew a lot that was in the film.

D'Souza presents the information avoiding the birther and Socialist tangents while stressing the colonialism over and over.

Obama's mentors and their view of Israel wasn't new, but it struck me as integral, which the media avoids today.

Right Truth

A.C. McCloud said...

Yes, he mentioned Ayers but didn't get into the weeds to where people might start fashioning him a tinfoil hat. Smart, because in essence the anti-colonialism, of which he makes a compelling case, has manifested itself in modern socialism through the various redistribution schemes as pointed out (and as we've all witnessed).

The one "light bulb" moment for me was his contention that Ann sent Barack back to Hawaii because Lolo started getting chummy with typical white people in Indonesia (oil company people--not her people). Never really connected that dot, just thought their marriage might have been stumbling, but it makes sense because as soon as O returned home they put him in touch with Frank Marshall Davis. But the Lolo days still remain murky. I'd also like to know why Obama wore a ring on his wedding ring finger through Occidental college all the way through Harvard.