Aka, ‘the virtues of colonialism’
Sunday, Michael Howdyshell sent me the following review of the movie “2016 – Obama’s America,” which is based on the book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” by Dinesh D’Souza. It has pretty much become a holy text among Obama haters. It was written by Neal Boortz, a right-wing talk show host. Unlike the last email Michael forwarded to me, the right-wing talker actually wrote this. You can find it on Boortz’s web site.
I thought it would be interesting to deconstruct the essay and expose its many prevarications. Those, and other distortions and lies that are currently being spread by the Romney/Ryan campaign, are the centerpiece of conservatives’ efforts to unseat the president. Once you realize it’s all made-up garbage, their campaign against Obama evaporates. What remains is nothing more than hollow and irrational hatred.
My comments are italicized in parentheses. So here we go!
By Neal Boortz
Yesterday afternoon I finally found the time to head to a theatre to see “2016 – Obama’s America”, a movie based on Dinesh D’Sousa’s book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.”
In the book D’Sousa tried to determine just what was driving Dear Ruler’s rage (dare we say hatred?) against successful wealthy Nations and Americans? (With this eye-rolling stretch, Boortz compares an elected American president with the late North Korean totalitarian Kim Jong Il).
Why did he send the bust of Winston Churchill back to the British Embassy in Washington? (Because the loaned bust had been previously scheduled to be returned at the end of the Bush administration. If Obama had tried to keep it, RWers like Boortz would be howling at him for reneging on the agreement). Why did he break with many previous presidents and take the Argentinian side on the Falkans controversy? (Obama didn’t take Argentina’s side. He asserted our neutrality, which was the same thing Reagan initially tried to do back in the 1980s.) Why is the centerpiece of Obama’s reelection campaign his obsession on raising taxes on the rich, even when history clearly shows that raising taxes on the rich only serves to reduce revenues to the government? (Notwithstanding the subjective assessment implicit in the term “obsession,” increasing taxes on the rich will increase federal revenue, as the Treasury learned during the Clinton administration).
To answer these questions D’Sousa traveled to Hawaii, to Indonesia, to Africa and around the Continental U.S. to interview the people who knew Barack Obama and people who have studied those who were close to Obama as he was growing up.
Now I tried to watch this movie with somewhat a different eye than most of the people in that theater. As hard as it is to do … I tried to watch it as an Obama supporter. (Another eye-rolling stretch. Can anyone imagine Neal Boortz imagining himself to be an Obama supporter, really?) I was looking for something that was clearly untrue or for logical lapses relating to Obama’s positions. (Yeah, like a liberal would recognize a logical lapse.) Not once did I think to myself “Oh now come on, Dinesh. That’s a little much.” (Boortz can’t find a “stretched-the-truth” moment in the film? That should be no surprise, from a partisan so eager to spread falsehoods about the Churchhill bust, the Falklands position, and long-discredited RWer taxation myths).
There were a few things in the movie that I had not realized … a few surprises for me.
*** Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, truly seemed to despise the United States, so much so that she gravitated solely to men from the “third world.” (Somehow, Boortz “knows” that Dunham never had a fling with a white guy; and he demands we take his word for that, then trots out this bedrock “fact” as a telling character flaw).
*** Obama’s father was married at the time he met and married Ann Dunham. No judgment here – that might have been perfectly acceptable in his culture. Just didn’t know that. (In other words, Boortz is telling us that this is an utterly meaningless “surprise.” Then why bother working it into the essay, except to portray her as a marriage-wrecking immoral slut?)
*** While living in Indonesia Obama’s mother sent him to Hawaii to live with his grandparents because she was concerned that Obama would be influenced by his step-father, Lolo Sotero’s, increasingly pro-American and pro-Western views and associations. (This graf undercuts the silly point he was trying to make in the first bullet point).
*** It was Obama’s grandfather, from whom his mother apparently got her strident anti-American views, who introduced Obama to Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, with the intent that Davis was to become Obama’s mentor. (The key word here is “apparently.” That means, “I’m making this up.”)
*** Obama’s private school in Hawaii, Punahou, was infused with an anti-colonialist fervor; an atmosphere of resentment toward the United States as having colonized Hawaii. (The school was founded by Christian missionaries in Hawaii, for the purpose of keeping their children on the islands for their education. What does Boortz have against anti-colonialism, really? Does he not realize that the most famous anti-colonialists in the world bore names like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine? Is he against them, too?)
D’Sousa puts all of the information he gathers together and comes up with the conclusion that Obama’s driving philosophy is one of anti-colonialism. (This is true. It was also the driving philosophy of revolutionaries Washington, James Madison, John Adams and the rest of the founding fathers.) His mother, father, grandfather and mentor were all strident anti-colonialists. They all harbored the feeling that America’s wealth came from the exploitation of other nations and people. Obama now sees the opportunity to honor the legacy of his parents by righting that wrong and by destroying much of America’s ill-gotten wealth. This he is intent on doing through the destruction of our economy. (Here, Boortz, reads the minds of people who are both dead and living. Do you honestly believe Boortz can do that? Seriously?)
At the end of the movie the audience – as it had in other venues – burst into applause. I heard yells of “Romney – Ryan” and “Take back America.” Me? I was shaken. The documentary rang true. It answered question for me – and left me even more afraid for the future of my country than I am now.
Much to the dismay of the left, the movie has been very successful in limited engagements across the country; so much so that the movie will open in an much-expanded list of theaters over the weekend.
Now .. here’s the problem. The only people who will go see this movie are people who are already predisposed to vote for Romney. (This is likely true. That’s because right-wingers eagerly swallow BS and lies about Obama like a starving man who’s been offered a sumptuous meal.) The vast majority of people who will vote for Obama are not voting for a particularly philosophy … they are voting for one simple reason: To get access to someone else’s wealth. (Wrong. They want to stem a 30-year tide of growing economic inequality that more likely than not will lead to another revolution, which could foster a worse system of government than we have now. It’s all about preserving democracy). They don’t care what Obama’s motives or reasons are. They care about one thing — their checks – their money – their ObamaMoney. (He’s reading others’ minds again.)
Here is the best way to use this movie. Get a friend who doesn’t vote; a friend who basically shares your political philosophy, but who doesn’t plan to vote because they feel their vote won’t count anyway. Take that friend to the movie. Offer them dinner before or after .. but somehow get them to that movie. This movie is so powerful it will take those “my vote won’t count” people and change them into “By God I’m going to MAKE my vote count” people. That may save our Republic.
(Only people who don’t want to think for themselves will buy this crap on a silver screen — but there are plenty of them.)