Hillary's America
I am shocked to see that Hillary's America, in two weeks has grossed $8,672,384 as compared to Michael Moore's wonderful documentry Where to Invade Next whose total gross is only $3,820,195.
Michael Moore's documentary was distributed through torrentz almost immediately and Clinton Cash was released for free on You-Tube and has no gross.
Clinton Cash rated 7.8, Where Do We Invade Next 7.6, and Hillary's America 6.1.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), based on Hillary's Early Career is rated 7.4.
-------------------------------------
OK, Hillary's America has been out two weeks and very surprisingly, no one has bothered to take a web cam. Apparently it isn't being shown in Russia. Certainly Independence Day 2 was web camed the same day it was shown in Korea.
Mind you, I think Obama is a disaster and Clinton is a stinking pile of corporate-state corruption. Trump is as substantive as a generic Cheez Wiz. I did find a copy of "Obama 2016" and the newly released book version of "Hillary's America. So, a short commentary on both.
I tried watching the Obama 2016 movie twice and fell asleep both times. Dinesh D'Souza comes off as a paid operative of the Tea Party as he makes a completely erroneous psychological analysis of Obama and completely fails to predict anything even remotely correctly. The main reason is that his analysis is so far off its rather pathetic. I accuses Obama of being a socialist with ties to communists around the world. Communists who were his best friends and mentors. Cringe worthy! Obama is a corporate state operative, not a socialist or a communist. All the crap about his absent father and commie substitute fathers is so full of bullshit... well its pathetic. I give it 1 star.
Like I said, Hillary's America is unavailable to those of us in Latin America and the Caribbean. But I did manage to get the book. In this tome the Democratic Party is the root of and present day promoter of the racist progressive agenda. The book Hillary's America is a sort of Tea Party version of the People's History of the United States.
Now, I do find the history to be interesting: Harriet Tubman was a Republican. Andrew Jackson was a genocidal maniac killing native Americans and stealing their land, the Black Laws in the South, Harry Truman's racist comments throughout his life, the KKK as the enforcer wing of the Democratic Party, Sanger's work with the KKK, Byrd's racism in the Senate... I may, if I can verify this stuff, be in agreement with the history.
According to D'Souza, the "progressives" ("collectivists" ) of the Democratic Party, like Hillary Clinton, are true racists, keeping the black folk and brown folk down on the plantation. I may even agree with this analysis. But then, he goes on to paint the Republican Party as the only party of social and racial justice, right up to present day. His analysis is utter bullshit because he ignores that both parties have always been beholden to big money: plantation owners, robber barons, bankers and corporations. And both parties have been poison to labor and people of color.
Dinesh D'Souza completely ignores that it has been the Socialists and Communists who have always been the avant-garde of social, economic & racial justice and peace activism. The socialist and communist parties and labor unions (IWW etc.) have been the only parties consistently fighting big money, big business and corporate-state corruption and control. Not the fucking Republicans! Not the Democrats!
I am grateful that someone has called out the ugly history of the Democrats, but I don't appreciate the white-washing of the Republicans. The book, in the respect of calling out the Democrats, is a good read. It contains a lot of quotable history, if verified and balanced out. Its analysis of the Republicans is a fantasy probably funded by the Koch Brothers and/or their ilk. Pure hogwash. If one has a limited amount of time, and hasn't read "People's History of the United States", "1492", the works of Chris Hedges and "The 51 Day War" (to give a few examples) are preferable.
As for the movie, I haven't seen anything but the trailer. Here are the reviews on imdb to scroll through:
Comments
Well,
Andrew Jackson was most certainly a racist murderer. I don't know what the root of a lot of that other stuff was, but you cannot seriously argue that he was anything but that.
Some people have heard of the Trail of Tears. Many tribes, one after one, were forced onto a death march out of their homes and down a trail out of their home state and into reservations. It's estimated that half the Cherokee who were forced down the trail died.
What many people don't know is that the Indians sued in court. The course made it to the Supreme Court. And, get this, they won the case. The Supreme Court decided in their favor, stating that the treaty they made was legally binding and they should be allowed to stay.
Andrew Jackson then mobilized the army, defying their order and using his military powers to force the Indians from their homes. I consider it to be the worst thing we ever did.
He also deliberately instigated a war in Florida, was involved in more then a dozen duels. He was the first neocon. If any man could ever be called evil. then Andrew Jackson was an evil man.
Jackson shouldn't get all the blame
If you look at the timeline, the worst of the Trail of Tears atrocities took place after Jackson was out of office. But unfortunately his hand-picked successor, Martin van Buren (who had been Jackson's Vice President), was a me-too rubber stamper on this issue and did 100% of nothing about it.
So yeah. Boos and jeers to van Buren also.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The movie is getting poor reviews
Here's the youtube trailer -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7e6gLht6OQ
I thought Clinton Cash was poorly done as well. For one thing it never gets to the arms deals (I wonder why?), and it is sleazy in the parts about Africa with doom like music and snakes crawling.
Here's the movie that brought us the Citizen United decision - "Hillary Clinton exposed" 1.5 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BUUy1C0_4g
For an honest evaluation of Hillary watch Abby Martin's Empire Files about her (30 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
Thanks for making me aware of the new movie.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Abby
Abby Martin is one of my favorite journalists. I am proud off telesur for having her show. I was sorry to see her brutally detained and injured by police goons at the DNC last week.
From the Light House.
Yup.
Your commentary is exactly what I learned from the book or remembered from Zinn about Andrew Jackson. Hundreds of years of land theft, looting and genocide.
My official USA history would be from US History 101. That would have been 50 years ago when Jackson was a "man of the people".
I am not arguing in favor of Andrew Jackson one iota. My criticism of the book is that it white-washes the Tea Party/Republicans and ignores the socialist and communist massive contributions to peace and justice.
From the Light House.
Rotten Tomatoes
"Hillary's America" has 4% on the Tomatometer. But the audience score is 80%.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Don't have the gastric fortitude to watch
But Harriet Tubman most likely was a Republican along with most freed slaves. The Republicans were the new third party composed in good part of abolitionists and led by Abraham Lincoln. That they came to be what they are today just shows the illusory nature of party labels.
Beware the bullshit factories.
dinesh d'souza
is one of those insufferable people who thinks they are much, much smarter than they actually are, and needs to tell the world about it.
GIANT ALL-CAPS SIG
I assume it to be accurate for the most part
but definitely heavily white washed, as most things from unapologetically biased sources are. Which describes US history classes perfectly. Thankfully we have the internet, and can fact check the propaganda.
Like, I don't recall any of my history classes mentioning the party affiliation of the KKK, but people on the internet that I assume are primarily Republicans love bringing up how it was comprised of Democrats, though they conveniently don't know/don't believe/don't care that the Democratic party used to be the more right wing southerner party at that point in time.
It's also always the case that our nuclear weapons are what forced Japan into surrender, even though our nukes killed less people each than the firebombing campaigns did each night, if I recall correctly, and Japan wasn't considering unconditional surrender at that point. No, it was actually Russia's decision to start attacking Japan from the north that convinced them to give up. But since Russia is a great evil communist nation, they don't deserve any credit for anything ever.
History Is A Weapon
Link: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/indextrue.html#
Click "Voices From The Empire"
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/indextrue.html#
This is an excellent resource for accurate historical insights.
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
What did we do before Snopes?
Klanned Parenthood
Prescott Bush was a founder of Planned Parenthood. Does that make the Bush family KKK supporters?
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Truman may have used racist language
(he was also exceptionally salty-tongued, and his wife Bess had a helluva job trying to "civilize" him), but when the chips were down, he undid the damage that a previous Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, had done. He DEsegregated the Armed Forces, and very nearly lost the 1948 election over it.
Betcha D'Slimeball never mentioned that.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.