by Jack
Okay, my daughter and I and several friends just watched America the movie at the Cinemark theater. We were impressed and felt it was well worth our time and money to see it. It told a pretty good story about our history, but better than just being entertaining it was supported by many things that could be fact checked.
The story opens with a summary of the left’s commonly stated positions, why America is a bad country. The left is fond of saying much of our land and riches were stolen from others or we built on the labors of black slaves, but they omit so much that this slice of truth reads like a lie. We need to look at the whole story says Dinesh D’Souza, the film’s author and producer.
Today we have radicals that quote the works of people like radical and America hater Saul Alinsky to divide us or convinced us our wealth was stolen. This is part of the shaming and shakedown of America. D’Souza paints another picture that acknowledges our wrongs, but places them in the proper perspective of the times and he shows that overwhelmingly our fortunes were earned and built through hard work. America the movie rails against the perception that the U.S. is a racist nation, and it argues that Hillary Clinton was influenced by the radical writings of Alinksy.
It’s a good movie and you won’t be bored, but I felt it could be more hard hitting. IMHO it doesn’t hit the rabid lying left as much as they could. It was no where near the level of criticism of a Michael Moore film about conservatives. America the movie was far more polite and responsible.
Jack you deleted the comment
This is not a war the left against the right. We are Americans every one of us. We are entitled to freedom and the pursuit of Liberty.
The left? I am no spring Chicken but the left is gone! The new left is old school republican.
This is the 21st century.. we are all to live peacefully together
United we stand cause Divided we WILL FALL
Thanks Jack.
Off Topic Heads Up:
Federal Gov’t Sues Wisconsin Company, Says English-Language Requirement is ‘Discrimination’
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/federal-gov-t-sues-wisconsin-company-says-english-language
Off Topic Again:
Krauthammer on illegal immigration —
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/01/krauthammer_if_fences_dont_work_why_is_there_one_around_the_white_house.html
Speaking of movies …
William Holden is such a fresh faced kid in this. So is Barbara Stanwyck. Lee J. Cobb’s Italian accent is a scream.
Golden Boy (1939)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue-b4-WJUMA
I would like to see the film, I like Dinesh D’Souza, just heard an interview with him on KSFO with Brian Sussman.
Jack I wonder if he can be all that hard hitting, his first film about Obama was the same, polite facts.
Planed on seeing it as well. Thanks for the reminder
“Today we have radicals that quote the works of people like radical and America hater Saul Alinsky ….”
The only people I ever hear quoting Saul are you all. But, have a look at this:
“In Rules for Radicals he wrote, [t]he job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.'” According to Alinsky, ‘the hysterical instant reaction of the establishment [will] not only validate [the organizer’s] credentials of competency but also ensure automatic popular invitation.'”
Now, do you really think you should have called the man an America hater? Sounds hysterical to me.
Giggle.
The inspiration for the book and upcoming Angelina Jolie film “Unbroken” and a former Olympian died following a case of pneumonia, according to a spokesperson for Universal Pictures.
See more at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/wwii-hero-unbroken-subject-louis-716524?mobile_redirect=false#sthash.Ty4IsGH7.dpuf
RIP honored hero. Know you have a grateful nation who will be forever in your debt for your service a great sacrifices.
I’ve read “Unbroken” and highly recommend it before the movie comes out.
Hysterical giggles aside, yes the man is an America hater! That is if you love living in freedom with rights guaranteed in the constitution. The American Constitutional system is based on inalienable rights…those given by God (not man), freedom, representative government, and supported by a system of laws to ensure equal justice.
Alinsky and his ilk prefer a constitution that gives the leader ultimate power to change the constitution at will, decided winners and losers, and control the institutions and the market.
Alinsky’s activists are taught to use lies, deception, intimidation, personal attack, and legal challenge to manipulate our laws, control business and the economy, control our educational system, and undermine the balance of powers in government. The goal is fundamental transformation of our system, as Obama told us directly. The goal is fundamental destruction of our constitutional republic and the creation of a socialist single party system.
Read more about Saul Alinsky here:
And here.
The term “America hater” was a joke back in 2007. Using it now makes you look like a complete idiot.
Chris, what exactly are your referring to when you said, “The term “America hater” was a joke back in 2007. Using it now makes you look like a complete idiot.”
I used the term America hater. Are you talking about me? I used that in reference to Saul Alinsky. He was a notable community organizer/activist that got his start in the communist movement, but later in his life he rejected being a member of any organization or movement, even those he created. He wanted to think of himself as an independent.
Alinsky published two books, both were counterculture, Reveille for Radicals (1946); Rules for Radicals (1971). Both are highly controversial and tend to divide Americans into opposing camps of haves and have nots, where wealth is taken by the have nots. This principle undermines the basic things that founded this nation in favor of something more geared towards socialism or communism. Alinsky would probably say he hated many things he saw wrong about America and he wanted to change them. I would say I don’t believe his changes would preserve the America I grew up in and that he hated my vision of America which is the most widely accepted version.
Next, I have no recollection of the joke you referenced “America hater from 2007”. So, you see why I’m confused by your statement and wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt before commenting further.
“… those given by God (not man), freedom, representative government, and supported by a system of laws to ensure equal justice.”
Wrong. By men. Our founding fathers. Secularists right down to their socks.
This country is not now, nor will it ever be, some reactionary theocracy. I’ve said it before, you have a lot more in common with those ISIS fellows than you seem to realize.
“Why do you hate America?
For a time after the second Iraq War began on March 20, 2003, dissent against this military action was viewed as unpatriotic by many people in the United States, particularly those on the right end of the political spectrum. Arguments against the war – whatever their merit or basis – were often met by the phrase “why do you hate America”?
Now, several years later, the phrase has gained ironic usage and is more often utilized to emphasize the irrelevance, illogic, or foolishness of the original argument; see examples below.
Original usage:
Person 1: Well, I don’t see why we needed to go to Iraq. Clearly Saddam Hussein was no danger to the United States.
Person 2: Why do you hate America?
Current usage:
Person 1: How can people watch professional wrestling? It’s so fake.
Person 2: Why do you hate America?”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Why+do+you+hate+America%3F
There are still people who use the phrase unironically, but doing so is a pretty clear signal of being out of touch and unaware of the inherent silliness of the phrase. It’s also used more by conservatives than liberals, though some overzealous liberals use it as well.
Look, Saul Alinksy had a vision for this country that you disagree with. Maybe you even find his vision evil. Fine. But calling him–or anyone else shy of an actual terrorist–an “America hater” is silly. He believed he was improving the country. In many ways I disagree with him, though that’s just based on what I’ve heard about him from conservatives (I’ve never had or even witnessed a conversation about Alinsky with another liberal–not even in college). He may have hated a lot of things about our country, but he does not seem to have hated the country as a whole.
Calling someone an “America hater” is a shortcut to an argument, and it usually reveals a lot more about the person using the phrase than the target.
An excellent perspective —
Saul Alinsky and the Rise of Amorality in American Politics
http://www.newenglishreview.org/DL_Adams/Saul_Alinsky_and_the_Rise_of_Amorality_in_American_Politics/
Jack, Chris is just doing a drive-by.
It never ceases to amaze me how much hate Chris, Libby, Dewey (and others) heap upon Jack and Tina. They, of course, are following in the footsteps of their dead and thoroughly toxic mentor Quentin Colgan who had no socially redeeming qualities whatsoever. Birds of a feather flock together.
Yet Jack and Tina take it in stride, always giving a voice to such pure, unadulterated, specious, hate filled, juvenile miscreants. More power to Post Scripts.
Re #13 Blame The Victim: “This country is not now, nor will it ever be, some reactionary theocracy. I’ve said it before …”
Who ever said it was? Take your straw man drivel and blow.
Re: Pie #17
I recommend we keep giving the “birds of a feather” a voice, if for no other reason than to remind us of what we would be buried under if not for good folks like Jack and Tina holding the line.
In an effort to deflect any incoming “bird bombs”—Yes, we all have the unalienable God given right of free speech under the First Amendment. I understand this. I wore the uniform to defend it, and would do it again. I would also point out than nothing in the First Amendment guarantees the speaker an audience.
Libby: “Wrong. By men. Our founding fathers. Secularists right down to their socks.”
You apparently misunderstood the comment.
I wrote: “The American Constitutional system is based on inalienable rights…those given by God (not man), freedom, representative government, and supported by a system of laws to ensure equal justice.”
It’s a list, like a grocery list. One of the ideas, indeed I believe the primary idea, that motivated the men who wrote the Constitution was the portion of the Declaration that states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The Declaration continues to state that governments are “instituted among men” for the protection of those rights and that the governments power is derived from “the consent of the governed.”
We are nation of laws…our inalienable rights are given by…a higher authority than any man, if God makes you squeamish.
(The term men, by the way, is a term that was taught in our schools to represent all humans (people) until the radical sixties feminists took affront and changed the narrative)
It’s incredible to me that these men created a secular government, given this agreed upon idea, and are not given an ounce of credit by radical lefties. In fact radical lefties do everything they can to undermine the Judeo Christian influence in America’s founding or the fact that these mostly religious men were determined to seek wisdom in an open minded fashion, rather than being dogmatic, because they wanted the best system possible to protect our inalienable rights. The document they created was unique in all the world and prepared the stage for civil rights battles that moved civilization toward greater justice for all people.
Libby you are paranoid. And you do not know the story of your nations founding.
I don’t want a theocratic nation. I support the Constitution because it recognizes that no person has a right to tyrannical control over others…not for religious, environmental, feminist, or any reason.
Quotes from the Founders can be viewed here
Revisionists have distorted our history. The truth would cause a lot of problems for the revisionists who prefer, as Obama does, a leader with power to pick winners and losers and control over commerce and the wealth. Money grubbing, power hungry, freedom robbing radicals all…Alinsky, Zin, Ayers, Soros.
Found the following at the first link above at#21:
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king;
He will save us.”
[Baron Charles Montesquieu, wrote in 1748; “Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same … body of principal men … exercised these three powers.” Madison claimed Isaiah 33:22 as the source of division of power in government