By Tom Quiner

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLsSg9wZlE&feature=player_embedded]

I was surprised at the huge crowd Saturday night at “2016: Obama’s America.”

I guess I was surprised because the last movie I saw there, “For Greater Glory,” had such a paltry audience. I thought for sure a movie about religious liberty, which is what “Glory” was about, would pack them in, in light of Obama’s HHS mandate.

“2016” is another story. The two-and-a-half million dollar budget documentary has pulled in $20 million at the box office already. It delves into parts of Barack Obama’s life that the mainstream media chose to ignore. The film is based on the best-selling book by Dinesh D’Souza,”The roots of Obama’s rage.”

In essence, it psychoanalyzes “what makes Obama tick.” This is a dicey proposition, trying to determine the motivations of a man.

I don’t know if Mr. D’Souza is correct in his assertion that Obama was influenced by the anti-colonial sentiments of his father, but he certainly presents a plausible case for it.

What is most disturbing about the film is the rogue’s gallery of anti-American mentors embraced by Barack Obama in his formative years.

Frank Marshall Davis was a communist and a pornographer. His sentiments were with the Soviet Union and Red China.

Roberto Unger is a philosopher, Brazilian politician, Obama’s former Harvard law professor, and a socialist.

Edward Said is Palestinian, an anti-colonialist, and anti-Israeli whom some say is a terrorist sympathizer.

Bill Ayers founded a communist underground group, The Weather Underground, that bombed public buildings and killed people.

The Reverend Jeremiah Wright was an anti-American, anti-Israeli preacher at the church Barack and Michelle Obama attended for two decades.

These are the men who formed Barack Obama’s view of America. Each hates America. Is this relevant information to the American voting public? You wouldn’t know it by the minimal coverage of these men by the MSM during the 2008 campaign. That’s why you need to run out and see 2016: Obama’s America this week.

The Democratic National Convention starts tonight. As you listen to his pretty rhetoric, weigh the words in the context of his mentors. That is what Dinesh D’Souza does.

It is at once fascinating and perplexing.

How could a man who clearly does not respect America con so many people into voting for him? Black author, Shelby Steele, suggests it was “white guilt” to some extent. Mr. Steele points out the contrast between a Barack Obama and so many other black leaders, such as Jesse Jackson. Barack Obama isn’t angry. The others are.

Barack Obama isn’t intimidating.

The others are.

In Obama’s memoir, “Dreams from my father,” Obama makes it clear that he sought out the thinkers on the left fringe, not the other way around.

Thomas Sowell, the black economist and political writer, points out Mr. Obama’s disturbing disinterest in the other side of the political spectrum:

“As Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong?

This would be a remarkable position to take, even for a learned scholar who had already spent decades canvassing a vast amount of information and views on many subjects. But Obama was already doctrinaire at a very early age — and ill-informed or misinformed on both history and economics.”

What 2016: Obama’s America reveals is the startling transformation of America that is taking place before our eyes:

√ The staggering increase in the national debt;

√ The decline in our foreign power;

√ The precipitous drop in our nuclear arsenal.

Reasonable observers can dispute Mr. D’Souza’s analysis of Barack Obama’s motives. But reasonable observers need to be aware of Obama’s influences and how radically they differ from any other President’s.

They should know that the men he loves hate America.

6 Comments

  1. Bob Vance on September 4, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    “He whacks Obama for “blocking” the Keystone pipeline (not true) while loaning “billions of dollars” to Brazil to pursue offshore drilling (also not true). There’s a bit of Glenn Beck-inspired paranoia as snaking thorns of red, black, and green encircle the Middle East and North Africa, forming the new “United States of Islam.””

    “At one point late in the narrative, David Walker, former Comptroller General and now founder and CEO of Comeback America, is introduced to talk about the debt. He lays out the national debt from Washington to Bill Clinton, then couples George W. Bush and Barack Obama as being on watch when it exploded. At no other time does Mr. D’Souza mention Bush’s involvement in our country’s fiscal malpractice or that of Wall Street malfeasance and why Occupy rose up in the first place. It’s all Barack Obama’s fault.”

    “It’s on the subject of national security where Dinesh D’Souza’s theory on Obama falls completely apart as he gets over-exercised and charges Pres. Obama has “weirdly sympathetic” views towards jihadists. It leads to the biggest blunder, when D’Souza complains about Obama’s dream of a nuclear-free world. Dinesh D’Souza forgets it was Ronald Wilson Reagan, in 1984 no less, who first uttered the words, “My dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth.” D’Souza hangs his entire theory on the notion that it is the reciprocity of nuclear disarmament that is missing today, which falls in on itself when you compare how many nuclear weapons the U.S. would have to destroy to get to nuclear parity with other countries, not considering the overwhelming strength of our conventional forces. “

    • quinersdiner on September 4, 2012 at 2:07 pm

      Bob, if you have a commentary, send me your own words, not an unattributed quote. For the record, Mr. Reagan believed in operating from a position of strength and expanded our arsenal before reducing it. Mr. Obama is reducing ours unilaterally.

      • Bob Vance on September 4, 2012 at 6:12 pm

        I am not stating what I put is right or wrong. I was just trying to show there is a difference of opinion on both sides of the issues. I am advocating for people to do the research to figure out which side is more correct given ALL the data available. Many people seem to only want to listen to that which they agree with. “I don’t like so I agree with anyone who has something bad to say about him / her.”

        I think this is our main problem. It is hard to find common ground which is needed to resolve most of these issues when you demonize the other side. As an example, the “Birther” theory, IMHO, did nothing to promote Republican values to the mainstream. Let’s stick to the issues and leave the conspiracy theories out of it.

        • quinersdiner on September 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm

          For the record, “2016: Obama’s America” rejects the birthers.

  2. Bob Vance on September 5, 2012 at 11:24 am

    I did know it rejects the “birthers”, btw. I have read quite a bit about this movie from both sides.

    Just for the record, even though I personally didn’t think we should have gotten into two wars, I stood up to those who demonized George W. back when he was President. I have been a Republican since voting for Reagan.

    Perhaps it’s because I am retired Navy, but I have a hard time hearing anyone bash the President of the United States, no matter what his party. Whether it be Bush or Obama or Romney or even Biden, I think they are all good men with good intentions. I may disagree with them on issues, but I still try to show them respect.

    Please remember that what I put here is not always intended to be directed at you but others who read this. I am not saying we should give in to the other side, but we should at least try to see why they see things differently. Too often I read on these sites about things like : “Democrat are morons” or “She must be a feminazi”. To me, this kind of talk adds nothing to the debate and shows a certain lack of maturity.

    I commend what you have done with this site and your openness to allow other opinions. I hope you continue this for years to come.

    • quinersdiner on September 5, 2012 at 11:35 am

      Hi Bob. Thanks for the kind words. I try to keep my rhetoric constructive and avoid name-calling. Regarding the war, honorable people could disagree on whether we should have gone to war in two mideast countries. Pope John Paul II certainly disagreed. I took issue with detractors of the president who were not honest in the way they approached their dissent. Good to hear from you.

Leave a Comment