The case for “2016: Obama’s America”
By Tom Quiner
“Nonsense.”
That was the word used by the Obama campaign to dismiss Dinesh D’Souza’s popular movie: “2016: Obama’s America.” (I highly encourage you to see this film.)
His premise: Mr. Obama’s seeming anti-Americanism in the eyes of many was nurtured by an anti-colonialist father and the anti-colonialist friends with whom he associated.
Mr. Obama himself nurtures this image with his own words:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling conventions. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerant. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”
Was Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary on Barack Obama nonsense? Not according to Barack Obama.
I saw the movie and everyone should.
Agreed.
Ditto
That’s the president calling the kettle nonsense
Here’s what is truly disturbing about this: the number of people who are not disturbed by Obama’s anti-American friends and associates. Even worse are those who are disinterested.
Count me as one of those people who do not think Obama is out to destroy the world as we know it.
I feel about “2016” about the same as I did Michael Moore’s Fahrehuit 911. I will probably never watch either. I do remember watching parts of Dinesh’s pseudo debate with Christopher Hitchens. I am sure they both sold alot of books with that also.
I thought it may be fun to throw in this conspiracy theory:
“The Melchizedek Mandate – The Political Agenda of the Mormon Church ”
“Hidden behind a dark curtain of the Mormon church there is an agenda of a secret church organization of which most are unaware. This includes members of the LDS rank and file. The dynamics of this organization, which began during early Mormon history, have continued down to the present time, controlling every president of the church since Joseph Smith, and is the real motive for why the LDS Church expends considerable effort in their missionary program.
The public organization, the visible structure of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was referred to by Joseph Smith as the “Church of God.”
Members believe, because it was started by God and Jesus Christ appearing in person to Joseph Smith, that at the Second Coming and the ushering in of the thousand year millennial reign, Jesus would acknowledge the LDS Church as the only true church.
However, there is a second organization, organized March 11, 1844, a secret organization which is the political machinery of their priesthood system, officially named the Kingdom of God (also called The Government of God).
As a separate organization distinct from the church, it is led by men holding high offices in the Melchizedek priesthood. Smith claimed he received the full name in a revelation on April 7, 1842: The Kingdom of God and His Laws, with Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ. This organization is governed by a group of fifty men who are sworn to secrecy about its existence under penalty of death.
Called the Council of Fifty, it was to be “the ultimate governing body for all mankind. The Biblical passage the LDS Church uses to validate this political organization is Daniel 2:31-45, which describes a stone which is to roll through the whole earth and destroy all other governments. Verse 44 is quoted often:
And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
Smith believed he held his political office by divine right and not by sovereignty. Claiming to be a descendant of Joseph through Ephraim, he felt he should rule over all Israel and ultimately the Jews and Gentiles, indicating his vision of global domination.
Therefore, in anticipation of a theocratic rule, it had to be headed by a king, not a president. In preparation for this, Joseph Smith declared himself king over all the earth, and was ordained as such. Two of his Apostles, Lyman Wight and Heber C. Kimball referred to Smith’s title as, President Pro tem of the world. “
How did this man ever become president? I’m still shaking my head at that one.
1. Wackadoodle friends like Van Jones, Jeremiah Wright, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
2. VERY limited experience, having served less than one full term as US Senator.
3. Won’t release his college records.
4. Questionable birth records.
5. Liberal beyond belief, approaching on socialist/ communist.
And then leading for reelection after:
1. TRIPLING the average annual debt under our previous biggest spender, George W. Bush.
2. Ramming through a vastly unpopular health care bill which will bankrupt this country, after taking billions out of Medicare.
3. Running a presidency never having signed an actual budget.
4. Throwing our ally, Israel, under the bus, our greatest ally in the world’s most tempestuous region.
IMHO, the only things Obama has done right involved killing people, i.e. Osama Bin Laden and the Somali pirates.