Monthly Blog Archives for
His Master's Voice
|Copyright © 2012 - All rights retained by author|
|Written by: C. W. Booth|
Friday, October 26, 2012
Obama’s America--2016: One Christian’s Movie Review
At the strong recommendation of a friend I watched Obama’s America: 2016. I know I was supposed to be shocked and horrified at the documented and credible evidence of Barrack Obama’s socialist left-leaning aspirations. Yet, the only thing that shocked me was that the written evidences are so freely available and easy to obtain and that Obama did not hide them very well.
Granted, some Americans will be thoroughly shaken to their cores to learn that Obama was mentored beginning in his teen years in Hawaii by a celebrity Communist party member (Frank Marshall Davis) and that Obama refers to “Frank” as molding his political views some twenty times in his own autobiography, but I was not that surprised. Obama’s stated social and financial goals for America have always been left-leaning as described in the contemporary media; just as he told Joe the Plumber his intent as president will be to "spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody," a not-so-subtle synomym for the socialist theme, “redistribute the wealth.”
This movie is not a mud-slinging slander piece, like the red-herring “birther” movement was. In truth, the movie goes to some length to explain the complex nature of the Obama family history; its complex nature being what caused the "birthers" to be confused and get it all wrong.
Far from being a smear piece, what is presented in the film are verifiable quotes and claims that explicate the president’s decision making patterns. It is all presented in a cool and level-headed manner as is befitting good journalism. More fascinating still, the movie predicts some of Obama’s future decisions based on his past political idealisms.
In fact, I did learn much of Obama’s family history that was never presented on the news: his father’s multiple and polygamous marriages, his mother’s multiple marriages, Obama’s abandonment by both parents while a youth, the reality of half-siblings living in various continents, and his grandmother-like relationship with one of his father’s plural wives in Kenya (he called her a “grandmother“ for public relations purposes). This history does help lay the framework for grasping how Obama was ultimately trained to favor left-leaning theories of finances and politics.
There is nothing offensive in this documentary-style film in terms of harsh language or improper visuals. It is not necessarily the most exciting thing one can watch on a Friday night, but neither is it the most boring. Within the film are surprises, but one would have to be quite naïve to be shocked to learn that the president favors socialism-style economic, domestic, and foreign policies. Perhaps the best thing the movie does is help to explain how the president came to hold those views and how his past explicates the decisions he has already made as commander-in-chief.
An informative book review of a recent biography on Frank Marshall Davis, and his impact on a young Obama, is found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2012/07/25/book-review-the-communist-does-frank-marshall-davis-have-an-ideological-godson-in-president-obama/
Post Script: Booth responded to a reader who felt the film's author was a hypocrite because he had marital problems:
I never doubted that the author of the film was a sinner, such is the nature of people. So labeling him a sinner does not make me doubt the factual nature of the material in his film.
It is interesting that D'Souza's film explores the president's political philosophies (i.e. socialism) and uncoveres the mentors Obama himself acknowledges most influenced his present-day thinking (e.g. communist party celebrity Frank Marshall Davis).
However, to my memory the film never addresses Obama's spiritual beliefs nor does it mention his morality much less attack Obama's ethics.
So I am curious then in what way D'Souza is a hypocrite? If D'Souza had pointed out moral failings in Obama during the film, then yes, it may have qualified him for the hypocrite label. But since D'Souza pointed out that Obama's political foundation is socialistic and his principal tutor was a celebrated communist then in what way is D'Souza a hypocrite? Are you saying that D'Souza is also a socialist who was mentored by a communist; is that what makes him a hypocrite in your eyes? LOL I think not.
Now, simply because D'Souza pointed out the inconvenient truth about Obama's documented political philosophy and about Obama's favored mentor in youth does not make D'Souza automatically "wrong."
Attack the factual nature of D'Souza's film (if you can) but if you want to dismiss him simply because he has had marrital problems then would we not have to dismiss more than half the candidates running for office this November?
D'Souza posted the following open letter on the internet:
A recent article in World magazine gives the false impression that I, a married man, had an affair with a woman Denise Odie Joseph at a Christian conference in Spartanburg, S.C. The article alleges that I shared a hotel room with her and introduced her as my fiancé. Finally it states that I filed for divorce only on the day I was confronted about my conduct by intrepid reporter Warren Smith.
Here are the facts:
1. My wife Dixie and I have been separated for two years. Dixie approached me and demanded this before I came to King’s College to become its president in late August 2010. I informed the chairman of the college at the time. I also informed the reporter who wrote the World article, Warren Smith, but he deliberately left it out of his piece, even though it is entirely relevant to the context.
2. I met Denise three months ago. We are not and have not been having an affair. Nor did we share a hotel room in Charlotte. Smith did not even ask me about this. Instead, Smith apparently deployed conference organizer Alex McFarland to call and raise the issue with me. I clearly told McFarland that Denise and I stayed in separate rooms. McFarland knew he didn’t have what he wanted, because he subsequently called me back and asked me again. I realized McFarland may be fronting for Smith, so I told him I didn’t have any further comment. I’m not sure whether McFarland is lying or Smith is lying, but one of them made up the quotation attributed to me that we stayed in the same room but “nothing happened.” This is pure libel.
3. I sought out advice about whether it is legal to be engaged prior to being divorced and I was informed that it is. Denise and I were trying to do the right thing. I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings. Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong. But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement.
4. While World notes that my divorce filing was registered with the court on October 4—giving the impression that I moved quickly on the day their reporter spoke to me—in reality I had been working with a San Diego law firm on this for the previous two weeks.
5. So why would World write such a misleading, sensational story that we would normally expect from the tabloids? Actually there is a back story here which was noted by Amy Sullivan at the New Republic, as well as numerous other sources. Marvin Olasky, the editor of World, is the former provost of the King’s College. Olasky was on the search committee when I interviewed to be president, and he vehemently opposed my candidacy. Olasky publicly admitted that he was resigning his position as a consequence of my appointment. The reporter who wrote this story, Warren Smith, also used to work as a consultant for King’s until I decided not to renew his contract. And what was Olasky’s gripe against me? As he put it, I was seeking to make King’s a non-denominational “mere Christianity college” in the image of C.S. Lewis. This for Olasky was simply intolerable. Having nursed his grievance for two years, now apparently Olasky is using World to continue his vendetta.
6. Ultimately this is not just about Olasky or even World magazine. It is also about how we Christians are supposed to behave with one another. And the secular world is watching. Is this how we love and treat fellow believers? If my conduct was improper, wouldn’t it be the decent and charitable thing to approach me about it? Instead, here is a clear attempt to destroy my career and my ministry. This is viciousness masquerading as righteousness. And this is the behavior that is truly worthy of Christian condemnation.
Post Script: Booth responded to a reader who openly wondered why the American press and public were not reacting negatively to Obama's obvious socialist leanings, like socialized health care:
My wife and I had a similar discussion that echoed the content of your post. Many Americans would actually be encouraged to vote for Obama if they saw the movie because it simply lays out Obama's political, social, and economic philosophies, and many people embrace the same ones he does.
"But who would knowingly vote for socialism in any form?" my wife asked. LOL I think the history of the world and all the socialism-based revolutions we have been witness to would demonstrate that huge numbers of people actually favor or prefer socialism over traditional American-style democracy and Western-style capitalism. Well, at least they favor socialism until they have had to live under it for a generation or two.
But for many Americans, I think they sincerely do not know that Obama's most intimate counselor and mentor was an anti-capitalist member of the American Communist Party in Hawaii. And I think that many of those Americans would find Obama's far left-leaning philosophies to be too extreme. Of course, I also think most of them will never come into contact with that information for one reason or another.
Post Script: Below is a reader's comment correcting Booth's statements that Obama exhibits socialist political leanings:
"one would have to be quite naïve to be shocked to learn that the president favors socialism-style economic, domestic, and foreign policies." Actually, Obama is an anti-colonialist--as the movie portrayed him--which has the negatives of socialists, but none of the positives. Anti-colonialists are more ideological and rigid in their policies and views of the world than socialists, generally speaking.
Select this line to continue reading into the next month's blog archives.