The Revenge of the Outlaw Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood’s first movie role was in one of those typical, 1950’s B-movie horror flicks called The Creature.  He would later star in more memorable films like Dirty Harry and High Plains Drifter  and Western TV series such as “Death Valley Days” (1956), “Rawhide” (1959-1965) and “Maverick” (1959).

He’s always played the tough-talking loner, unafraid of telling the truth or taking on the bad guys single-handedly.   So, he was made for the role at the RNC Convention, when he introduced Mitt Romney to the GOP audience.  It was sort of a sequel to his various films.  Call it, "The Revenge of the Outlaw Clint Eastwood."

Somehow, he got duped into shilling for Obama in a Super Bowl ad for Chrysler last February.  “It’s Half-Time in America,” he grittily intoned, unwittingly pitching for the very working class union members who bankrupted Chrysler, setting the company up for de facto government ownership by taking Federal funds.  Chrysler now had to play by Obama’s and the union’s rules.

So, when the RNC invited Eastwood to introduce its presidential nominee at the convention, he saw his chance and accepted it.  According to the current stories, he changed the script as he was about to go on stage.  Had Romney’s campaign vetted Eastwood beforehand?  They would have been fools if they hadn’t.  Eastwood probably knew that.  He also knew what he was going to say before he got on stage.

As Eastwood seemingly doddered and stumbled over words, the Alyinskite Media saw a target and salivated.  Marksman that he is, it’s just as hard to imagine that Eastwood didn’t know he was in their crosshairs.  He knew what he was doing.  He’s an actor, after all.  He played his part perfectly.  He seemed to trip over his tongue on the ad-libbed conversation with Obama, but delivered the scripted part of his speech perfectly.

Romney’s campaign was probably wringing its hands, especially the younger staff members.  They were no doubt panicking over the younger, image-conscious Independent voters were thinking, whom they had so carefully packaged their campaign to attract.  Here was this doddering old (82) duffer screwing everything up for them.

ABC News reacted right on cue this morning, a Saturday morning when young people and their children would most likely to be watching, to mock Eastwood’s performance.  “Did you see Eastwood’s very straaaaaannge performance at the convention?” the young anchorette laughed.  “Talking to an empty chair?”  They played a brief clip of the impromptu act.

The young independents have a saying, “Dumb is the new smart.”  That could be taken two ways – as a criticism of the Tea Party and its mostly older members or as a tacit admission of their own arrested development.  Tea Parties may bitterly cling to their guns and religion, but Gen X and their juniors tenaciously cling to high school cliques and peer pressure.  The Liberal Gen Xers are the clique whom no Gen Xer dares to contradict.  Speak the truth, or even just seek the truth, and they will ostracize you.

Gen X socialists are putting their followers under a ban of seeing the movie 2016.  They don’t want them to even think about it.  Do so, question Obama’s legitimacy, competence, or goals in his second term, and they will “unfriend” you from the social media – Facebook, Twitter, and others.

These American kids – they’re certainly not mature adults if, even with children of their own, they can’t make an independent decision (and you can’t do that unless you examine both sides of an issue) without consulting their clique leaders, or stand in fear of their censorship) – like their Chinese counterparts, don’t want to know anything about politics.  Their answer is to shrug when they’re warned that, if Obama is elected to a second term, by 2020 they will no longer be allowed to own private property, inherit their parents’ property or leave what property they have to their children, and reply, “Whatever.  Leave me alone.”

They can’t identify with a Clint Eastwood.  Aside from his age, they think he belongs to a generation that idealized freedom and individuality and is dying out.  This is the generation of collectivism where everyone absolutely must wear blue jeans, listen to unmemorable music that is here today and gone tomorrow, and keep their politics to themselves if they don’t agree with the in-crowd.

Not discussing religion, politics or sex, used to be the code of polite society.  The taboo on sex was promptly thrown out the window in the Sixties.  Religion has been scolded out of popularity, leaving on politics.  You can discuss politics, absolutely:  if it’s Liberal or Progressive Democrat politics.  No self-respecting Gen Xer would ever appear at a Tea Party rally, even though they have the most to lose if Obama is re-elected.

Gen Xers just figure they’ll play whatever hand is dealt them.  The “new smart” is to play whatever game is being played, and game that system and come out on top.  The idea of losing their inheritance.  “That’s ridiculous,” the leader of a certain Facebook clique jeered.  “How can someone be so ignorant?”

The young lady was told that the notion isn’t ridiculous to the Chinese.  That’s exactly what they do.  There are very few houses in China.  What could be called houses are shacks and shanties in the run-down part of the cities and the poor villages in the far-off countryside.  The young Chinese sneer at living out there.  They much prefer the lights, the restaurants, and comforts of modern, glittering Shanghai, which offers plenty of diversions for the price of freedom.

The Gen Xers don’t think Eastwood is brave or courageous; they think he’s old and stupid.  They think we Tea Partiers are old and stupid.  Their own arrested development (versus our alleged senility)?  Nonsense.  And if they are suffering from that malady, it’s not a problem.  Loss of freedom.  Who cares?  Being taken for a ride?  Why, they’re too smart for that.

Wisdom comes with age.  Clint Eastwood is a brilliant actor and director.  At 82, he’s still up to it.  Bravo to Dirty Harry for a magnificent performance.  We heard him, even if the younger generation was deaf, blind, and dumb to his message.  They’ll have to deal with the future they inherit, not us.  When they’re locked into a collectivist society where they’re told where to work, live, play, and how to get there, what they can buy and what they can’t leave to their children, and when they will be forbidden from protesting or registering their dissatisfaction, most of us will long be gone.

Those left to witness their plight will be too old to do anything but shrug and say, “Whatever.”

 

 

 

 

 

Romney's Human Side

Accepting the Republican Party's nomination for President, Mitt Romney gave a good, solid acceptance speech last night.  To be sure, it was not as flashy as Paul Ryan’s.  Nor was it Ronald Reagan. There were no cymbal crashes – well, a few – or verbal fireworks.  Mainly, it was serious talk for serious times.  It was Mitt Romney.

Polls indicated that the feckless Independents wanted Romney to show his human side.  So he talked about his family and his admiration for his wife’s courage in raising five boisterous boys:

"She [Ann] was heroic. Five boys, with our families a long way away. I had to travel a lot for my job then and I’d call and try to offer support. But every mom knows that doesn’t help get the homework done or the kids out the door to school.

"I knew that her job as a mom was harder than mine. And I knew without question, that her job as a mom was a lot more important than mine. And as America saw Tuesday night, Ann would have succeeded at anything she wanted to.

"Like a lot of families in a new place with no family, we found kinship with a wide circle of friends through our church. When we were new to the community it was welcoming and as the years went by, it was a joy to help others who had just moved to town or just joined our church. We had remarkably vibrant and diverse congregants from all walks of life and many who were new to America. We prayed together, our kids played together and we always stood ready to help each other out in different ways."

Now, there’s a candidate of courage, speaking, in these secular times, of his faith.  He told us about his Mexican immigrant father.  He spoke of Neil Armstrong’s courage and spirit.  He spoke about the hopes and dreams of immigrants to America, how they came here seeking the American dream, a better of life.

Without getting into ideology, he spoke about Obama’s promise to America and how America believed in his promise.  Then Romney factually detailed how Obama had failed in that promise.  He was too gentlemanly to examine the causes, the ideology behind that havoc and what Obama intends for America “I’m not that kind of guy.”  In his mind, rightly, who cares what Obama has in mind, because we’re going to elect Romney, an experienced, successful businessman whose expertise was in rescuing flailing companies.

America will be his biggest challenge – a country with a flailing economy.

Still, there are the unconvinced out there, brainwashed into the Obama cult who just don’t get it.  Obama has failed, deliberately thrown the test.  He’s an avowed Third World guy who hates America, he hates the upper and middle class, and if you just read his biography, Dreams From My Father, you discover he hates white people.  Passionately.  There’s just no getting around it.  The words are there in black and white, in his own writing.

Romney may not want to fight Obama’s ideology because he’s just not that kind of guy and he figures the dismal statistics alone should be enough to indict Obama.  That doesn’t mean, however, that the rest of us shouldn’t fight back.

The Obama in “Dreams” is decidedly not a nice guy.  You don’t need to read critical biographies of him (although it’s a good idea) to find that he’s colder, more distant, more impersonal, and more detached, by his own admission, than Mitt Romney is.  Although it might be understandable, having been essentially abandoned by both parents, he does not attend his father’s funeral, and doesn’t go to see his mother in her dying days.  He just shrugs.

He is passionate only about distancing himself from his privileged, suburban background, including attending the elite Punaho School, a private school, in Hawaii.  Take him seriously when he admits that he sought out the socialists, Marxists, and radicals.  He did do pot and other drugs, although eventually he decided to clean up his act.  But only to pursue his mission of “transforming” America into his idea of a nation – a Third World country.

Obama is not above deceit at all, having been trained in the Alyinskite-style of political organizing (that’s what community organizing is).  “Drop the radical pose for the radical ends.”  In other words, the ends justify the means, and if that means deceiving the white people into believing you care about them, so be it.

We are like the drivers through Six Flags/Great Adventure Wild Safari in Jackson, N.J.  In desiring to get closer to the wild animals, drivers willingly bring the cars right into the center of the action.  They get to see the animals close up.  And the animals have the fun of tearing your car apart, particularly the monkeys.

Theirs is no racism meant or implied here; it is, in fact, what monkeys do.  They’re destructive wild animals.  Years ago, at another New Jersey safari park in West Milford, called Jungle Habitat (which is now defunct), I remember riding with my mother on her bus on a class trip she was driving through the park.

A monkey landed on the twin doors of the bus and proceeded to tear off the molding and eat it.  Anyone else would have laughed it off and said, “Oh, who cares?  The insurance will take care of it, or the bus yard mechanics will fix it.”  Not Mom.

With a scowl, she put the bus into park, put on the parking brake, and turned off the engine.  She then got out of her seat, stepped into the doorwell and proceeded to yell at the monkey.  Mom yelled at the monkey (“Get away from there!  You’re not going to eat MY bus!!”) and the monkey yelled back.  Mom won, actually.  The monkey flew off.  The bus was in hysterics.  I, being only a teenager, was mortified.

“Mom, you’re arguing with a monkey!”  More howls of laughter from the kids.

“I don’t care!  I’m not going to let that thing tear my bus apart!”  The monkey returned, landing on the hood of the bus.  It screeched at Mom, who sat there sullenly.  Then it proceeded to try to tear off the passenger-side windshield wiper.  Mom realized there was no point in trying to argue with a monkey; it would just make a monkey of her.  Instead, she turned the windshield wipers on (at high speed), sending the monkey into a final retreat.

We’ve reached a point in our economy – and in culture – where we can no longer afford to shrug and figure someone else (the bus company, the insurance company, the taxpayer, the government) will pay for the damage.  Six Flags finally realized it, after 30 years.  Jungle Habitat realized it after about four years.

Mom came from the Responsible Generation (aka the Greatest Generation).  Not only didn’t she shrug, but she fought back, with spirit.  She wasn’t going to let a monkey make a monkey out of her, or just laugh off the damage it was doing to her bus.  The bus company owner considered Mom a model employee.  She was given the task of training new drivers.  When she got too old drive, they gave her the job of straightening out their records.

Mom was also a model Mom.  That’s why I rode with her so often on her bus trips.

We need to stop shrugging.  We need to stop shrugging at Obama’s dismantling of our country, making excuses because we mistakenly think he’s nice guy.  Last night, some pundits were concerned about Clint Eastwood’s slightly naughty performance (I thought it was pretty funny and right on target).  Apparently, they didn’t like the insinuation that Obama is foul-mouthed.

Publicly, he isn’t.  Just read his own book and you’ll find out just how foul-mouthed he really is.  Clint Eastwood had Obama pegged quite accurately.  If the Independents, and their sympathetic Media allies (including, I’m sorry to say, Fox News), just did their research, they’d find out.  Our intellectually superior media also seemed to have missed the lesson of a simple metaphor of the empty chair - the invisible president, the empty suit, the empty promise.  Instead, they gnashed their teeth (yet again) over whether this performance would be perceived by Independents as an "attack" on Obama.

In a sense, Romney doesn’t have to “attack” Obama.  Obama reveals his own dark side and where he’s reluctant to do so, for obvious political reasons, there are plenty of critics (Dinesh D’Souza’s books fill in the gaps and correct the falsehoods Obama tells, such as the story about the black man trying to turn his skin white) with the information.  All you have to do is uncover your eyes and stop pretending that he’s a nice guy.

Romney is the better choice for President of the United States.  He’s decidedly more capable, experienced, patriotic, and caring.  We can be pretty sure that he'll never shrug us off.

 

 

Ryan's RNC Convention Speech - Music to Our Ears

Paul Ryan’s speech last night at the RNC Convention in Tampa proved that Mitt Romney had made the wisest, savviest choice in his selection of a running mate.

N.J. Gov. Christie’s speech was great; he covered all the all-American points.  Supporters were disappointed that he only mentioned the presidential candidate at the end of his 16-minute speech.  No one should really be surprised, or even feel embarrassed by that fact, not even Gov. Christie.  The truth is, Christie is a leader not a follower.  Someday, he may make a great president; he would have a difficult time following someone else’s orders.

But Paul Ryan.  All his years of speechwriting for other candidates, his background in economics, his family background, his experience in Congress, and his youth all paid off in the enthusiasm for him and for the presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

The whole speech was so wonderful, it’s hard to pick just one great moment.  An experienced speechwriter, he delivered the right mix of pronouns, he gave us the triads so important to a good speech.  He gave us excellent personal examples.  He used colorful illustrations, to set his ideas in the mind’s eye of his listeners (“College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.”)  He gave us facts and figures to solidify his arguments.  And most importantly, he had no qualms about attacking the opponent, Obama.

The deal maker in speech, even though he had his audience sold early on in the speech, was his remark about the musical generation gap between himself and Mitt Romney.

“We’re a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we’re a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I’ve heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it’s not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin.  A generation apart. That makes us different, but not in any of the things that matter.”

To use a triad:  brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.  This is one smart man.  In one paragraph, he bridged the generation gap that has been harrying the Republican Party.  Music has been a dividing line for generations.  A.C. and Led Zeppelin aren’t exactly my music; they’re more my older brother’s music.  My younger brother is a Charlie Daniels fan.  I was more into John Denver and Glenn Miller.  If you’re going to attract younger voters, you’ve got to whistle their tune.  In this one paragraph, Ryan appealed to the younger generation’s taste in music, bringing the GOP into the 21^st Century, and healed the gap by saying that the difference is insignificant.

He went on to discuss Romney’s support for Medicare, and Obama’s gutting of that social program.  America never should have been lured into such a socialist trap, but the voters of the time were, and now, for better or for worse, we’re stuck with.  Romney and Ryan are not going to pull the rug out from under us.  Ryan is as much a defender of the Greatest Generation as he is the Led Zeppelin generation.  Romney, and his point-man, Ryan, recognized that Americans themselves, through their years of hard work, paid into this program and deserve what they were promised.

Ryan followed the Conservative principles on every point in his speech.  Earlier in the evening, I was disappointed to hear moderate Republican speakers advancing the causes of wind and solar power.  Just as Paul Ryan’s delegates deserved to have their voices heard, so did these speakers.  But these programs are hardly sensible and have barely been vetted.  We don’t need to hear more advocates of these alternative methods; we need to hear the other side of the story.

However, Ryan’s speech was a balm for all the Liberal Republican hogwash.  Let us hope that his future boss, Mitt Romney, will deliver a speech just as stirring and evocative of the principles of the Founding Fathers.

As Ryan noted, “We don’t have that much time. But if we are serious, and smart, and we lead, we can do this.”

Amen to that.

Playing by the Rules - The RNC Rules Floor Fight

No sane person would ever take Ron Paul to be a Conservative (Legalize pot?  I don’t think so.)  Barring any other Republican candidates, Mitt Romney seems to be the guy.  Yet yesterday’s rules fight - over how delegates may actually vote – also gave sane people pause to wonder whether the Republican National Committee has gone insane.

According to delegate Dean Clancy, whose after-action report from Tampa was posted on Michelle Malkin’s website: 

“At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate [allowing them] to discourage grassroots activists [like the Tea Parties] from taking part in the process.  They will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes.  The ‘Inner Circle’ has scared quite a coup.”

Some argue that it was a big fuss over nothing.  Ostensibly, the fight was over keeping Ron Paul from gaining just enough delegate votes to prevent Romney from taking the nomination, thus invoking a brokered convention.  Others say the GOP had a greater agenda of marginalizing the Tea Party.

Ultimately, the GOP announced an amazingly Conservative platform, even opposing abortion.  However, he who presented the platform did so in such a condescending, patronizing manner that it would seem he’d forgotten the 2008 election.  The GOP gave us an inherently unelectable candidate in John McCain, leaving then-candidate Mitt Romney out in the wings, when most Conservatives certainly preferred the young, healthy and sensible Romney to the doddering McCain.  McCain’s nomination cost Republicans the election, with Conservatives and young people (like my nephew) sitting out the election.

They have no right to even expect us to trust them, much less sit down and shut up and let them run the show.  Their incompetence is what gave birth to the Tea Party movement.  We don’t want politics as usual.  We won’t tolerate it, we won’t accept, we won’t sit down and shut up.

The complaints about overreacting come from armchair voters who probably never bother to vote in primaries and never pay attention to what’s really happening.  Their “whatever” attitude is just as dangerous to our federal republic as the RNC’s rule-changing game.  Had they paid attention in 2007, even gotten involved, Mitt Romney might have been the nominee, and Barack Obama would still be weeping on his father’s Kenyan grave.

Since Mitt Romney himself was a victim of this sort of political sleight-of-hand, he can’t be blamed for the outrage in this year’s convention.  Either he wasn’t part of it, or he figured that’s just the way the game is played.  Since the party adopted a Conservative platform and Romney seems capable of the job, most Republicans are willing to overlook this business of rule-changing.

However, the Tea Parties were formed for this very reason:  to let politicians know that we’re not going to let them get away with politics as usual.  We expect more and better from our politicians, and this party with whom we must make alliance (at least for the time being).  The Tea Party activists are their ground soldiers.  They’re the ones going door-to-door soliciting votes, manning the phones, passing out flyers, and donating their hard-earned money for Republicans.

Whether they allow grassroots activists a seat at “the grown-ups” table or not, we’ll still be here, holding their feet to the fire in whatever means are available to us.  They should remember that they need us more than we need them.  Obama is the worst president we’ve ever had and he needs to be defeated.   But not at all costs to honor, integrity, and freedom of speech.  The RNC can just remember that they’re the ones who put us in this position.  Betray us, marginalize us, silence us, and millions of Conservative voters will vote with their “slippers.”

We already have one dictator-in-chief in the White House; we don’t need to elect another one.

 

Obama's Move "Forward"

Forward?  To Hawaii, Russia, and China

On April 30, 2012, having successfully wreaked his "hope" for fellow-traveling Marxists and "change" upon not just America's wealthy but her middle class for the sake of the have-nots, Obama introduced his new, 2012 campaign slogan, Forward, many Conservative bloggers recognized it immediately as a famous Marxist slogan.  Many attributed it to Josef Stalin.  Others were able to date it back to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov “Lenin.”

The propaganda slogan, “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, of progressivism, which would move the world “forward” past capitalism and into socialism and Communism.

Clearly, it’s a Marxist slogan, a fact Obama would rather the public not know.  However, since so many bloggers published the story, it would be hard for anyone to ignore it or its significance.  But what about the date Obama chose to announce it?  Communists, Islamists, and anti-colonialists are very fond of anniversaries.  They love to bask in the limelight of their moment in history.  So let’s take a look some moments in history from the date of April 30^th:

·         1006 – Scientists record the brightest supernova in history

·         1661 -  The Chinese lay siege to the Dutch fort Zeelandia on the isle of Formosa (Taiwan)

·         1789 -  George Washington inaugurated as the first President of the U.S.

·         1861 -  Pres. Lincoln ordered Federal troops to evacuate Indian territory

·         1864 – New York becomes 1^st state to charge a hunting license fee

·         1898 – Shaka, the great Zulu warrior is killed

·         1900 – Casey Jones dies in the Cannonball Express train wreck – very apropo

·         1900 – The U.S. annexes Hawaii under Pres. McKinley

·         1945 -  Adolf Hitler commits suicide

·         1903 -  The N.Y. Highlanders (later the N.Y. Yankees) play their 1^st home game

Wait, wait, and wait!  Let’s back up a few steps.  The United States annexes Hawaii on Apr. 30, 1900  – much to the dismay of the islanders who fault missionaries for introducing disease and traders for introducing agriculture and capitalism, and dispensing with such customs as incest.  Hmmm.

Now, the Cannonball Express came on April 30, 1900 (according to Wikipedia).  Very fitting, given the sabotage of our train-wrecked economy by the Democrats.  The exact date of Hawaii’s annexation is actually unsubstantiated; still, Obama chose that exact date.  The royal governance of the island was not overthrown by the U.S. government but a group of American and European businessmen in 1893. However, what it was granted in 1900 was the right to self-governance and the restoration of Iolani Palace.

In January 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown and replaced by a Provisional Government composed of members of the Committee of Safety. Controversy filled the following years as the queen tried to re-establish her throne. The administration of President Grover Cleveland, a friend of the queen, commissioned the Blount Report, which concluded that the removal of Liliʻuokalani was illegal. The U.S. government first demanded that Queen Liliʻuokalani be reinstated, but the Provisional Government refused.  Congress followed with another investigation, and submitted the Morgan Report on Feb. 26, 1894, which found all parties (including Minister Stevens) with the exception of the queen “not guilty” from any responsibility for the overthrow.  The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the debate over the events of 1893.

In 1993, a joint Apology Resolution (so Obama was not the first Apologizer-in-Chief) regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, apologizing for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.  It is the first time in American history that the United States government has apologized for overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.  The Provisional Government of Hawaii ended on July 4, 1894, replaced by the Republic of Hawaii.

After William McKinley won the presidential election in 1896, Hawaii’s annexation to the U.S. was again discussed. The previous president, Grover Cleveland, was a friend of Queen Liliʻuokalani. McKinley was open to persuasion by U.S. expansionists and by annexationists from Hawaii.  He met with three annexationists from Hawaii.  After negotiations, in June 1897, Secretary of State John Sherman agreed to a treaty of annexation with these representatives of the Republic of Hawaii.

The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, despite the opposition of a majority of native Hawaiians, the Newlands Resolution was used to annex the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii. The Newlands Resolution was passed by the House on June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21.

Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii began when Puerto Rico's sugar industry was devastated by two hurricanes in 1899. The devastation caused a world-wide shortage of sugar and a huge demand for the product from Hawaii. Hawaiian sugar plantation owners began to recruit the jobless, but experienced, laborers in Puerto Rico. Two distinct waves of Korean immigration to Hawaii have occurred in the last century, arriving between 1903 and 1924; and then, the second wave began in 1965.

In 1900, Hawaii was granted self-governance and retained Iolani Palace as the territorial capitol building.  Despite several attempts to become a state, Hawaii remained a territory for 60 years. Plantation owners and key capitalists, who maintained control through financial institutions, or “factors,” known as the “Big Five”, found territorial status more convenient than statehood, enabling them to continue importing cheap foreign labor; such immigration was prohibited in various states.

As the pineapples ripened, so did Hawaii’s economic status, but it was also fertile ground for Marxist anti-imperialists and anti-Capitalists such as Frank Marshall Davis.  So, where did Davis get his anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist philosophies from.  Why, from Vladmir Ilyich Ulyanov Lenin, of course.  Who else?

Vladmir Illyich Ulyanov “Lenin” (“Lenin” was his nom de guerre, taken from the Russian River, Lenina) founded the publication Vpered (Russian for “forward” in 1905.  Marxist artists set to work creating many propaganda posters with this word, and Soviet propaganda film maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary entitled “Forward, Soviet”, “soviet” being the Russian word for “council”.  One of his pamphlets, published in 1917, was entitled:  “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It:  Can We Go Forward If We Fear to Advance Towards Socialism?”

At the dawn of the Bolshevik Revolution, upon returning from exile on April 15, 1917, at Finland Station, in Petrograd, Russia, Lenin told the waiting crowd:

“The piratical imperialist war is the beginning of civil war throughout Europe ... The world-wide Socialist revolution has already dawned ... Germany is seething ... Any day now the whole of European capitalism may crash ... Sailors, comrades, we have to fight for a socialist revolution, to fight until the proletariat wins full victory! Long live the worldwide socialist revolution!” 

In exile again, reflecting on the July Days and its aftermath, Lenin determined that, to prevent the triumph of counter-revolutionary forces, the Provisional Government must be overthrown by an armed uprising.  Meanwhile, he published State and Revolution (1917), proposing government by the soviets (worker-, soldier- and peasant-elected councils) rather than by a parliamentary body.

Lenin had argued in a newspaper article in September 1917:

“The peaceful development of any revolution is, generally speaking, extremely rare and difficult ... but ... a peaceful development of the revolution is possible and probable if all power is transferred to the Soviets. The struggle of parties for power within the Soviets may proceed peacefully, if the Soviets are made fully democratic.”

On the evening of Oct. 26, 1917, Lenin attended the Congress of Soviets.  American journalist John Reed described the man who appeared at about 8:40 p.m. to “a thundering wave of cheers:” 

“A short, stocky figure, with a big head set down in his shoulders, bald and bulging. Little eyes, a snubbish nose, wide, generous mouth, and heavy chin; clean-shaven now, but already beginning to bristle with the well-known beard of his past and future. Dressed in shabby clothes, his trousers much too long for him. Unimpressive, to be the idol of a mob, loved and revered as perhaps few leaders in history have been. A strange popular leader—a leader purely by virtue of intellect; colourless, humourless, uncompromising and detached, without picturesque idiosyncrasies—but with the power of explaining profound ideas in simple terms, of analysing a concrete situation. And combined with shrewdness, the greatest intellectual audacity.”

According to Reed, Lenin waited for the applause to subside before declaring simply: “We shall now proceed to construct the Socialist order!” Lenin proceeded to propose to the Congress a “Decree on Peace”, calling on “all the belligerent peoples and to their Governments to begin immediately negotiations for a just and democratic peace,” and a “Decree on Land,” transferring ownership of all “land-owners’ estates, and all lands belonging to the Crown, [and] to monasteries” to the Peasants’ Soviets. The Congress passed the Decree on Peace unanimously, and the Decree on Land faced only one vote in opposition.

To initiate the Russian economic recovery, on Feb 21, 1920, Lenin launched the GOELRO Plan, the State Commission for Electrification of Russia, and also established free universal health care, free education, and promulgated the politico-civil rights of women.  Moreover, since 1918, in re-establishing the economy, for the productive business administration of each industrial enterprise in Russia, Lenin proposed a government-accountable leader for each enterprise. Workers could request measures resolving problems, but had to abide the leader’s ultimate decision. Although contrary to the theory of workers’ self-management, such pragmatic industrial administration was essential for efficient production and employment of worker expertise.

Yet Lenin’s doctrinaire Bolshevik opponents argued that such industrial business management was meant to strengthen State control of labor, and that worker self-management failures were owed to lack of resources, not incompetence.  Lenin resolved that problem by licensing (for a month) all workers of most factories; thus historian S. A. Smith's observation: “By the end of the civil war, not much was left of the democratic forms of industrial administration promoted by the factory committees in 1917, but the government argued that this did not matter since industry had passed into the ownership of a workers’ state.”

On Dec. 20, 1917, “The Whole-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, the Cheka (Chrezvychaynaya Komissiya – Extraordinary Commission) was created by a decree issued by Lenin to defend the Russian Revolution.  The establishment of the Cheka secret service, formally consolidated the censorship established earlier, when on “ Nov. 17,  the Central Executive Committee passed a decree giving the Bolsheviks control over all newsprint and wide powers of closing down newspapers critical of the régime. . . .”; non-Bolshevik soviets were disbanded; anti-soviet newspapers were closed until Pravda (Truth) and Izvestia (The News) established their communications monopoly.

According to Leonard Schapiro,  the Bolshevik “refusal to come to terms with the [Revolutionary] socialists, and the dispersal of the Constituent assembly, led to the logical result that revolutionary terror would now be directed, not only against traditional enemies, such as the bourgeoisie or right-wing opponents, but against anyone, be he socialist, worker, or peasant, who opposed Bolshevik rule.”" On Dec. 19, 1918, a year after its creation, a resolution was adopted at Lenin’s behest that forbade the Bolshevik’s own press from publishing “defamatory articles” about the Cheka.  As Lenin put it:  “A Good Communist is also a good Chekist.”

In response to Fanya Kaplan’s failed assassination of Lenin on Aug. 30, 1918, and the successful assassination of the Petrograd Cheka chief Moisei Uritsky, Stalin proposed to Lenin “open and systematic mass terror . . . [against] . . . those responsible”; the Bolsheviks commenced a Red Terror campaign.  Among other acts, Lenin signed execution lists authorizing the Lenin authorized the shooting of 25 Tsarist ministers, civil servants, and 765 White Guards in September 1918.  In his Diaries in Exile, 1935, Leon Trotsky recollected that Lenin authorized the execution of the Russian Imperial Family. However, historians have debated the authenticity of Trotsky’s recollections, while others claim there is abundant evidence that Lenin authorized the executions in Alapaevsk, about 100 miles from Yekaterinburg.

Other Bolsheviks had warned the Party that terrorist rule was inevitable, given Lenin's assumption of sole command. In late 1918, when they tried curbing Chekist excesses, Lenin overruled them; in 1921, via the Politburo, Lenin expanded the Cheka’s discretionary death-penalty powers.

The foreign-aided White Russian counter-revolution failed due to lack of popular Russian support, because the Bolshevik proletarian state, protected by “mass terror against enemies of the revolution,” was socially organized against the previous capitalist establishment, thus class warfare terrorism in post–Czarist Russia originated in working class (peasant and worker) anger against the privileged aristocrat classes of the deposed monarchy.   During the Russian Civil War, anti-Bolsheviks faced torture and summary execution.  By May 1919, there were some 16,000 “enemies of the people” imprisoned in the katorga (prison farm) labor camps; by September 1921, the prisoner populace exceeded 70,000.

Professor Christopher Read states that though terror was employed at the height of the Civil War fighting, “from 1920 onwards the resort to terror was much reduced and disappeared from Lenin’s mainstream discourses and practices.”  However, after a clerical insurrection in the town of Shuia, Lenin sanctioned action against defiers of the decreed Bolshevik removal of Orthodox Church valuables: “We must... put down all resistance with such brutality that they will not forget it for several decades... The greater the number of representatives of the reactionary clergy and reactionary bourgeoisie we succeed in executing... the better.”  As a result, historian Orlando Figes estimates that perhaps 8,000 priests and laymen were executed. The crushing of revolts in Kronstadt and Tambov in 1921 resulted in tens of thousands of executions.

In 1917, as an anti-imperialist, Lenin said that oppressed peoples had the unconditional right to secede from the Russian Empire; however, at end of the Civil War, the USSR annexed Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, because the White Movement used them as attack bases.  Lenin pragmatically defended the annexations as geopolitical protection against capitalist imperial depredations.

To maintain the war-isolated cities, keep the armies fed, and to avoid economic collapse, the Bolshevik government established war communism, via prodrazvyorstka, a Russian word for which there seems to be no translation, but was a Bolshevik policy and campaign of confiscation of grain and other produce from peasantry for a nominal fixed price).  This policy resulted in armed confrontations over food requisitioning from the peasantry, for little payment, which peasants resisted with reduced harvests.  The Bolsheviks blamed the kulaks’ withholding grain to increase profits; but statistics indicate most such business occurred in the black market economy. Nonetheless, the Cheka and Red Army suppressed the peasant resistance with shooting hostages, poison gas, and labor-camp deportation.  Still, Lenin increased the requisitioning.

The six-year long White–Red civil war, the war communism, the famine of 1921, which killed an estimated five million, and foreign military intervention reduced much of Russia to ruin, and provoked rebellion against the Bolsheviks, the greatest being the Tambov Rebellion (1919–21).

After the March 1921 left-wing Kronstadt Rebellion mutiny, Lenin replaced war communism with the New Economic Policy (NEP), and successfully rebuilt industry and agriculture. The NEP was his pragmatic recognition of the political and economic realities, despite being a tactical, ideological retreat from the socialist ideal; later, the doctrinaire Joseph Stalin reversed the NEP in consolidating his control of the Communist Party and the USSR.

Communism took hold in China in 1947, with Mao Tse-Tung’s Great Leap Forward, an economic and social campaign of the Communist Party of China, a central planning program from 1958 to 1961, which aimed to use China’s vast population to rapidly transform the country from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of rapid industrialization and collectivization.  Mao led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces, a widely-used Marxist concept placing primary emphasis on technical advances and strong productive forces in a nominally socialist economy before real communism, or even real socialism, can have a hope of being achieved. The Great Leap Forward intensified after being an impending disaster from grain shortages was discovered.

Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivization, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labeled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions and social pressure, although people also experienced forced labor.  Rural industrialization, officially a priority of the campaign, saw “its development … aborted by the mistakes of the Great Leap Forward.”

The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.  Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million to 45 million, with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to 32.5 million. Historian Frank Dikotter asserts that “coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward” and it “motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history.”

The years of the Great Leap Forward in fact saw economic regression, with 1958 through 1961 being the only years between 1953 and 1983 in which China's economy saw negative growth. Political economist Dwight Perkins argues, “enormous amounts of investment produced only modest increases in production or none at all. … In short, the Great Leap was a very expensive disaster.”

In subsequent conferences in 1960 and 1962, the negative effects of the Great Leap Forward were studied by the CPC, and Mao was criticized in the party conferences. Moderate Party members rose to power, and Mao was marginalized within the party, leading him to initiate the Cultural Revolution in 1966.

In light of this history of Communism, Obama’s adoption of the slogan “Forward!” for his campaign, and rumors that the DHS has ordered law enforcement to heavily arm themselves against some mysterious insurrection, it’s no wonder authors like Dinesh D’Souza are warning against the re-election of Obama (although D’Souza insists Obama is not a Marxist or Communist).

Having studied these matters since childhood, I would submit that our worry is not even 2016, but 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2016: Obama's America - A Review

 “2016” is a documentary the entertainment industry didn’t expect to do well at the box office.  It is, after all, a documentary, and who spends $12 and more per ticket to go see a documentary?  But the entertainment industry exists in a cocoon – a Liberal cocoon – where they expect only the young to go see movies with Liberal themes.  A Conservative documentary?  Please.

However, within a week or so of its release, audiences were clamoring to see the film.  Initially, it was released in only two theaters in northern New Jersey.  Thanks to word of mouth and Conservative radio, TV, and alternative media talk show hosts, the film has gained widespread release and wound up No. 4 at the box office.  The movie would have ranked even higher in box office dollars, only many audience members are seniors with discounts.

“2016” (as it is commonly known) is based on two best-sellers by author and president of King’s College Dinesh D’Souza” – his “2010, The Roots of Obama’s Rage” and his new, 2012 “Obama’s America:  Unmaking the American Dream.”

The movie is a distillation of the two books, with some additional, interesting information.  D’Souza is a noted Conservative, detested by the Liberal Media.   A native of Mumbai (Bombay), India, he came to the United States as a high school student because he wanted to follow the American dream of a better education and life, something he said he couldn’t find in India.

Two books were necessary because D’Souza started out writing one book – “Rage” – and in writing it, found himself in the end, writing quite a different book.  Initially, he was an admirer of Obama’s.  He said he could identify with Obama’s Third World upbringing.  Conservatives, he felt were being too harsh on the future president during the campaign.

During the 2007-2008 campaign, a TV host noted that we didn’t know much about Obama.  His guest (I can’t remember who it was right now – probably Newt Gingrich) responded, “Read his two books.  You’ll find out everything you need to know right there and you won’t have any doubts.”  He tells you himself that he plans to destroy America.

Still, D’Souza was intrigued by Obama.  Here he was, the product of a Third World upbringing.  He was the same age as D’Souza.  He went to Ivy League schools.  He married the same year as D’Souza and his wife.  Coming from a Third World country, D’Souza felt he and Obama shared a similar view of colonialism.  D’Souza grandfather had served the British during India’s colonial period.  Both grandfathers suffered abuse, as well as Obama’s stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia.

D’Souza, in the first book, asks his readers to have patience and put on the anti-Imperialist glasses to see where a Third Worlder like Obama is coming from.  It’s a painful, wincing account of Great Britain’s occupation of these countries.

Obama’s campaign managers tried to distance themselves from D’Souza’s charges.  But D’Souza pointed out, it was right there in Obama’s first book, Dreams from My Father.  D’Souza read both books and then decided to research Obama’s background himself, to verify the facts.

Obama’s parents were Barrack Hussein Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham.  They were both radical socialists, even communists, atheists, and anti-colonialists.  They met in college during a Russian class, and married.  Obama failed to mention to his new bride, that he already had a wife and children back in Kenya.  When Obama was still a baby, Barack Sr. abandoned Ann and the baby to study at Harvard University.  There, he met yet another white woman, whom he also married and took back to Kenya with him, to the Lulo tribe, where polygamy is an accepted custom.  Barack Sr. and Ann were divorced in 1964.

Ann then met Lolo Suetoro, an anti-colonialist Indonesian.  They married and moved to Indonesia.  Ann, who had a taste for dark-skinned, Third World men, eventually found herself disenchanted with her second husband.  The anti-colonialist Indonesia president, Suarno, whom Ann idolized more than her own husband, D’Souza tells us, was replaced in time by a pro-Western, pro-Capitalist president.  Lolo took a job with an American oil company and began, like Indonesia, to prosper.  The country was doing well, Lolo was doing well, and even Obama was doing well, taking a liking to his stepfather.  But Ann was unhappy.  One day, she was watching Lolo playing with Obama in their marshy front yard.  There, D’Souza tells us, she saw Lolo’s foot prints, and little Barry’s (his name was unofficially altered) following him.  Ann didn’t want her son growing up influenced by her now-Westernized husband.

She sent Barry packing off to Hawaii to live with her parents.  Stanley Dunham had a decidedly Leftist bent.  He felt little Barry needed a black mentor, so he introduced the boy at about the age of 10, to his hard-drinking, womanizing poker buddy and card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, Frank Marshall Davis. 

Meanwhile, Ann filled her son’s head with tales of his absentee father’s genius and anti-colonialist principles.  She still adored her ex-husband.  Barry only saw his father at one period in his life, for about a month.  According to D’Souza, Barack Sr. was handsome, stylish, charming, and an amazing storyteller.  He mesmerized his son during a classroom visit with tales of Africa.  Little Barry was hooked and idolized his father, even after he vanished.  He never saw him again, but they maintained a correspondence by letter.

It was only in college that he learned the truth about his father, a wife-beating, alcoholic who wasn’t as influential in Kenya as Ann had told her son.  He failed the examination to get into college in Hawaii and prevailed upon two Christian missionaries, lying about his position in government, to get them to underwrite his trip to Hawaii.  Hawaii was a fertile ground for anti-colonialism.  The island had been annexed by in the 1890s by William McKinley, and given statehood in 1959, only two years before Barry’s birth. 

Feelings still ran hard among the native population, and anti-colonialists like Obama Sr. found it a perfect breeding ground for stirring up discontent and revolution, blaming the planters who came to the island to build sugar plantations for “exploiting” the natives, just as the Dutch and English “exploited” Africans for the continent’s diamonds, and later, oil, and as the Dutch had “exploited” Indonesia’s and the Philippine’s locations in the Pacific for trading.

D’Souza explains that Barack Sr.’s death in 1962, when Barry was about 21, hit the young man very hard.  But more devastating was his half-sister’s revelations about the father’s many flaws.  (He died in a drunken driving accident, slamming his car into a tree.  In previous drunken accidents, he killed a man in one, and lost both his legs in another).  What’s more, Barack Sr. had achieved what little success he really enjoyed through charisma and the mask of deceit.

Barry’s turning point was a visit to his father’s grave when he was 26.  Devastated at the loss of this absentee father and role model, and the discovery of his flaws, Barry threw himself on his father’s grave and wept.  But then, like Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind, he picked himself up and emerged Barack Hussein Obama Jr.  He vowed to reject his father’s flaws and take up his father’s dreams – of anti-colonialism and socialism – and carry his father’s dream on to reality.

D’Souza tell us, in the book, that Obama’s agenda was not one of racism or religion (both parents were atheists, Lolo was an indifferent Muslim, and all Obama’s subsequent mentors, with the except of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, were atheists).  No, it was all about the class struggle.  The rich versus the poor.  The anti-colonialists versus the neoimperialists (according anti-colonial scholars, since Great Britain was divested of most of her colonies, America has taken up her mantle through the guise of Capitalism).  Obama’s mission, his dream from (from, not of, as D’Souza points out), was to turn the imperialist world on his head, shake the change loose from their pockets, and “equitably” distribute the wealth among the poorer nations.

This is a distinction D’Souza warns us that we’re not making.  When Obama speaks of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, he’s not talking about rich Americans versus poor Americans.  As far as he’s concerned, and in the worldview, even the poorest Americans are wealthy by Third World standards.  Obama means to divest America of all her wealth and distribute it among the nations of the world.  And, as D’Souza doesn’t even need to tell us, really, Obama is doing a fine job of ruining our economy.

D’Souza’s books and his movie contain important information, and yields a clue as to why Obama was able to win over so many white voters:  he played upon white guilt over slavery and racism, and he played the white voters like a violin.  D’Souza’s theory is that white voters, looking for absolution, found it in this black candidate for president.  Vote for him and they would be “absolved” from all charges of racism, for they had voted for this black candidate.

They could find no fault in his appearance.  He was friendly, well-dressed, articulate (at least according to some), and likeable.  What’s more his 2004 address to the Democrat National Convention sounded like any, all-American Conservative speech.  D’Souza notes – and you can see and hear the speech in the documentary – he sounded like Reagan.  Why wouldn’t white voters vote for him?  He was careful to wear the mask, to sound like those whose votes he was soliciting, and admitted himself that he wanted to avoid coming across like the angry black man they feared.

Even when they disagreed with him, white voters couldn’t bring themselves to “hate” him enough to criticize, even if they didn’t for him.  “What can I say?  I like the guy.”  Those who knew the truth, had heard his words, “I want to transform America”  and “redistribute the wealth” didn’t even need to read Obama’s two autobiographies to know the truth.  Still, those who had read them declared that between the covers was one very angry black man.

That, D’Souza says, is what got him elected.  The author admits he fell for this act in the beginning.  He read the books, wanting to find the roots of the connection between himself and Obama.  They were basically the same color.  But upon more careful research in writing his own book, what D’Souza discovered were, literally, the roots of Obama’s rage.

Because my mother fell ill on the Saturday we were supposed to go see the documentary, we went to see the movie on Sunday instead.  As a consequence, we were in an audience about the same age, or therebouts, as my mother.  Mom came away from the movie feeling depressed, she said.  I asked her how she could have been surprised.  She and my father brought me up very Conservative.  They tried with my brothers.  They succeeded with the younger, and to a lesser degree, with the older, the one who caved in to the communist high school teacher.

“You yourself told us when we were children that all this was coming, Mom.  You predicted exactly all of this.  You knew it was coming and so did Dad.”

“Yes,” she replied.  “But I thought people would fight harder.  I didn’t think people could be so stupid and gullible.”

I told her not to blame herself.  None of us voted for the guy and I helped one of the Tea Parties get started.  I even gave a speech.  In Mom’s view, it’s hopeless.  “White people shouldn’t even bother having children.”  Now that he’s already in power, she feels, it’s too late.

But D’Souza’s books, if nothing else, serve as final warning that if we don’t wake up those who are still asleep, admiring themselves, even as Obama admires himself, for being “post-racial” and not look below the surface at this man’s true agenda, we will be ruined economically.  Obama means to reduce America’s status as a “superpower” and defender of freedom (and thereby, free trade.

I disagree with D’Souza only on one point.  He declares that Obama is not anti-American.  Yet his parents, his grandparents, and all of his mentors were.  I agree that he’s probably not a Muslim, although Obama certainly displays Muslim sympathies, which D’Souza says are only a mask for his real goal of anti-colonialism (Israel being the virus of the Middle East, in the anti-colonial view).  Obama had no qualms about ordering the assassination of Osama Bin Laden because he had taken his fight from the home ground, which is an anti-colonialist no-no.

Obama deliberately, and admittedly, surrounded himself with and sought after, associates with anti-American views.  Maybe D’Souza’s Third World sympathies cause him to cling to some hope that Obama is not all bad, and decidedly anti-American.  Like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, he believes there’s still some good in him.

Obama’s story is a rather twisted version of the Star Wars saga.  We should be very alarmed by Obama’s embracing of myths and fabulism, rather than reality.  Tyrants are often the stuff of legends, idolatry, self-delusion, and lies.  Michelle Malkin referred to it as the “Cult of Obama.”  We all know how cults work out.  We know how difficult “reprogramming” cult members is.

Still, this is reality.  My parents, being reporters, discouraged me from dreaming.  They always insisted on my facing the truth, and searching for the truth.  I knew the truth, before I ever read D’Souza’s books.  I knew it, growing up in America in the Sixties.  I heard it for myself.  I’ve even heard William Ayers (now much older) speak.

No one can accept the truth (especially if they’ve been brainwashed) from a second or third party.  They must seek it for themselves.  That search requires a degree of trust from those who urge you to seek it, as my parents did.  It also requires courage.  I could read undaunted.  I trusted my reality-based, Conservative parents, my best mentors.  To get those who’ve been duped to see this movie and maybe even read D’Souza’s books, as well as others, will require that we get the younger generation to trust us.

I would suggest Mom’s tactic, when my classmates were trying to tempt me into some unwise action or other.  “They’re strangers,” said she.  “They’re not even your friends.  They’ve never been friends.  You know that.  I’m your mother.  We’re family.  I’ve been here for you, always.  Have they?  They don’t care about you.  They don’t love you.  Who do you think you can trust more?  Them or your family?”

D’Souza’s pleas are not based on emotions but upon facts, numbers, statistics, and well-calculated predictions about our economy.  At the end of “Roots,” D’Souza writes on page 222 of the paperback edition, at the end of the Acknowledgements chapter:

Some individuals who have helped me with this book have asked that their names not be used; they are worried they might attract the unhelpful scrutiny of the Obama Administration.

“Trust me,” says one of them, “You don’t want those guys coming after you.”

As you see from these pages, I am not waiting for them to come after me; I am going after them, and with the greatest weapon of all – the truth.”

We cannot wait too long, though.  The election is only two months away.  What's more, I was going to end with D’Souza’s quote, but even as I was reading through the quote and getting ready to type it, yet another blast shook the windows of my bedroom.  The blasts are so enormous that they’re actually registering as small earthquakes.  They’re coming from the Smart Growth Towers project, only five minutes away on the other side of Federal Hill.  They are part of what is NOW called the Building One America project, enacted in 2011 (and the subject of yet another book on Obama, about his war on the suburbs), in which homeowners will be either taxed or over-leveraged out of their homes and into high-density housing projects, like this one being built, near big cities and welfare recipients will be moved into the suburban homes of the former property owners.

Those blasts are not just the sound of 30 tons of granite and rock being displaced;  it is the thunder of America's destruction.  Our world – our America is being blasted apart.  The time to act is now.  Get your family and friends, especially your children (school-aged, teenaged, grown, or in arrested development) to the movie theaters to see 2016:  Obama’s America.  Call it a political intervention.

They must know the truth.  It’s their future that’s at stake.

Trust me.