The ads and messages I have seen about the movie call it "2016" and I just went
to see it this evening. Curiously, the theater sign outside did not say 2016 but only
had the word, "OBAMA" there for the film name. You have to go up to the ticket
window to see the numerals 2016 in the little ID picture next to the showtimes. That
picture had no mention of "OBAMA" in it. I've never seen one name on the sign or
marquis outside, and a different name entirely on the ticket window sign.
But anyway, about the movie. I think it does a fairly good job of alerting the
viewer to some of the catastrophes that would inevitably result from a second term
of this economic and Communist terrorist in a clown suit. Dinesh D'Souza does an
admirable job of identifying the anti-colonial theme of Barry Soetoro's, I mean,
Barack Obama (Jr's) ideology. It seems to make a good case for that, especially since
D'Souza hails from India, where he spent his childhood, and therefore knows what
colonialism and anti-colonialism is all about.
And the film does touch briefly on the curiously marginalized influence of Frank
Marshall Davis on the young Obama (Jr.) or was it Soetoro?? Whatever. Nobody seems
to care about aliases anymore. And the disinterest of American voters in the
numerous unanswered controversies of Barry, that is, Barack (Jr.) is a covered topic
in the film, and well done.
But among the 5 ideological "fathers" that formed his attitudes, including Davis,
Bill Ayers, Soetoro and two college professors (both Communists) they omitted
Barack Obama Senior, as well as any mention of Obama (Jr's) principle mentor, Saul Alinsky.
The latter fact was quite ominous to me. When combined with other mildly critical
aspects of the film, it seemed to me that the only reason this movie ever made it
to the theater near-you showings is that it could perhaps be seen as a
soft-propaganda film IN FAVOR of Obama. It does not make the case against his
socialist ideology strong enough, but only hints vaguely at it, as though the movie
makers are afraid to make the film too objectionable to liberal viewers.
IMHO it reminds me a lot of Bishop Fellay's softened opposition to Modernism in
the Church, and softened opposition to the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
+Fellay could be a LOT stronger against the errors of Conciliar Rome and 2016
could be a LOT stronger against the threats a second Obama term would pose to
national security and international economic stability...
If the "official" story were true, why isn't our president named "Barack Obama Jr?"
I ordered a copy of a movie that goes significantly further against the Communist
bent of Obama. I got it from Alex Jones' InfoWars website (infowars.com) called
Dreams from My REAL Father, by Joel Gilbert. "Dreams" suggests that
Frank Marshall Davis is a much more likely candidate for being the biological
father of Obama, and explains how that was a motive for Obama's mother to
marry Barack Obama, Sr., in the first place. It proposes the fascinating theory,
which could be the big "secret" that Obama (Jr.) has been trying to suppress at
all costs, literally, for years now: that the arranged marriage between Ann
Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr., was the brainchild of Frank Marshall Davis
himself, in order for him and Dunham to circumvent Hawaii legal restrictions at
that time, and also, perhaps to a minor degree but nonetheless a consequent
advantage, to provide the young Barry (Barack Jr.) an opportunity for a political
career in the future. Because that is the way F. M. Davis thought! He was a political
strategist, who wrote numerous articles for several Communist publications, and
he knew that any association with him would probably incapacitate the boy's
future in the world of politics, if he ever chose to pursue that goal. Time would tell.
If true, Dreams would indicate that "Barack Obama Jr." would be untrue, and that
it would more realistically be "President Frank Marshall Davis, Jr.," but that would
have been if he had been named after his REAL Father, from whose dreams our
president gets his ideology and vision.
Numerous comparative photos show how Obama (Jr.) does not really have any
resemblance to Obama Sr., but does have strong resemblance to Davis, especially
in his later years. Obama (Jr.) is looking more and more like F. M. Davis as years
go by. Both of these movies, 2016 and Dreams, tell of Davis' known and
documented mentoring of the young Obama (Jr.), but 2016 does not develop that
theme sufficiently, while Dreams does, in my opinion.
I highly recommend viewing this "Dreams" film, and warn that if you only see
2016 you are only getting half of the picture. You should also read what John
Vennari writes regarding the Alinsky connection, or get the CD that Vennari sells
by that title. It has been available for several years, already.
It appears unfortunate that Dreams did not come out in 2008, because then it
might have erupted the opposition to Obama early enough to prevent his first
election. Also, coming out now, from what I find, there is already such a strong
pre-condition set in the minds of media-numbed viewers, that the things in
Dreams is scoffed at out of hand, without any attempt to even pay attention to
the argument in the first place. This is a HUGE victory for liberals, who want their
minions to laugh off "conspiracy theories" before they ever listen to the FACTS
behind these speculations. And there are a LOT of cold, hard facts, that simply do
not add up when you listen to the official version of Obama's early life.