Dinesh D’Souza Tells the True Story of America

MV5BMjM0MjgyOTQ4NF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTQ1NzQ3MTE@._V1_SX214_AL_Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, “America, Imagine a World Without Her,” which earned a rare A+ rating from CinemaScore, is apparently such a threat to progressive ideology that Costco initially ordered the book on which the movie is based removed from its shelves. One can understand why: the film is a devastating takedown of those who see America as the primary source of evil in the world.

The picture opens with a what-if scenario that includes the assassination of George Washington by a British sniper, and the subsequent disintegration of Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, the Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Statue of Liberty, as D’Souza asks, “What would the work look like if America did not exist?”

The question is used as a vehicle to set up—and subsequently knock down–the left’s grievance agenda and its victims. Those grievances include theft of land, labor and the American Dream, as well as genocide, segregation and racism. The victims include Native Americans, black Americans, Hispanics and ultimately all Americans. “These indictments developed separately, and each has been around for a long time,” D’Souza explains. “But now they’ve come together in a single narrative of American shame.”

The main driver of that narrative is historian Howard Zinn, whose polemic, “A People’s History of the United States,” has been required reading in thousands of American public schools and universities for years. “When I hear young people on the campus repeat the narrative of American shame, I know they haven’t been told the whole story,” D’Souza notes.

He proceeds to fill in the gaps, explaining most of the world’s history is driven by the “conquest ethic,” where those who are conquered have their land taken and are invariably made slaves in the process. For example, while the left singles out the settlers of the New World for “stealing” Native American territory, D’Souza reveals the same land transfers occurred in precisely the same manner among tribes who successively conquered one another. The charge of genocide is debunked when D’Souza explains that far more Indians died from disease than slaughter, and the same lack of natural defenses that made Native Americans vulnerable to European-borne maladies are the ones that made Europeans susceptible to the Asian-borne diseases that devastated Europe. Tellingly, no one refers to the European tragedy as genocide.

More historical gaps are filled in with regard to the history of the Mexican War and American slavery. All of Mexico was conquered during a rebellion against the oppression of dictator Santa Ana, but half was returned, and Mexican war debt was retired in the process. And while D’Souza freely admits the legacy of slavery was theft of life and labor, he reminds us that 300,000 Union soldiers gave their lives to free the slaves. “What’s uniquely Western is the abolition of slavery,” D’Souza states. “And what’s uniquely American is the fighting of a great war to end it.”

Once again D’Souza emphasizes that singling out America for the sins of the word is a fool’s errand because slavery existed in every culture in the world from the Egyptians to the Chinese to the African to the American Indians (long before Columbus) and, as we are reminded, slavery exists even today.

D’Souza also fills in some important historical gaps with facts that would likely surprise many Americans. These include the existence of free black plantation masters who owned more than ten thousand slaves of their own, and the story of black American Sarah Breedlove, aka Madam C. J. Walker, who became the nation’s first female self-made millionaire marketing a line of beauty and hair products for black women.

D’Souza employs the same technique in debunking the leftist accusations of American imperialism, and the “theft” of the American Dream that capitalism ostensibly represents. From WWII to the most recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, D’Souza reminds Americans that not only have we stolen nothing from these countries, but expended considerable blood and treasure re-building them. And the free-market capitalism that has showered this nation with unprecedented wealth succeeds “not through coercion or conquest, but through the consent of the consumer.” “The wealth of America isn’t stolen, it’s created,” D’Souza asserts. “The ethic of conquest is universal. What’s uniquely American is the alternative, equal rights, self-determination, and wealth creation. If America did not exist, the conquest ethic would dominate the world.”

The movie points out that the American left embraces a conquest ethic all its own. “The shaming of America is not accidental, it’s part of a strategy,” he warns. It is a strategy formulated by the likes of radical leftist Saul Alinsky who was “the godfather in the art of using shame for political shakedown.” The cultural revolution of the ‘60s provided Alinsky with his army of shakedown artists who have since infiltrated media, academia and, most importantly, government. Ever-expanding government has given us a nation where agencies like the IRS, the EPA, the DOJ and the NSA “are all collecting information and storing it on every American,” D’Souza warns. He explains that Barack Obama didn’t create this liberty-stifling reality. Rather, it created him.

In the closing of the film, he lays out where the nation has been, and where it must go. “The Revolution was a struggle for the creation of America. The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America. World War II was a struggle for the protection of America. Our struggle is for the restoration of America.” And while he would like to see the emergence of a leader as forceful and inspiring as Washington, Lincoln, or Reagan, he makes it clear that the ultimate restoration of America must be engendered by the people themselves.

It is important to note that D’Souza freely owns up to the many of the nation’s historical shortcomings. Yet unlike the American left, he offers some much-needed–and factual—context to the narrative. Because leftists like Zin and others are more than willing to leave out so many uplifting American stories in an effort to realize their agenda of national transformation, D’Souza insists we have a moral obligation to reinstate them and prevent it from happening.

He also offers fair warning to the historical revisionists. “We won’t let them shame us. We won’t let them intimidate us. We are going to start telling the true story of America,” he declares.

D’Souza has definitely hit a leftist nerve. Their reviews of his picture ooze with condescension and disdain for his point of view, with Media Matters referring to it as “racially charged agitprop.” Yet the bet here is a lot of Americans would like to see a movie that contains stories about the goodness and greatness of our nation, even as it illuminates the cast of characters and the shame-inducing agenda that forms the heart of their efforts to denigrate American exceptionalism. Costco, whose co-founders Jim Sinegal and Jeffrey Brotman are big Obama supporters, reinstated D’Souza’s book following an outpouring of protests. It is most definitely in Americans’ best interests to see what they wished to suppress.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Elizabeth capecod

    The fascist left will do everything possible to silence and punish this man….which only serves to validate the message of the film.

    • Lanna

      The Left runs from truth….they run from the Light…and wish to live in the dark which is where they will ultimately end up!

  • http://paulweston101.blogspot.com Paul Weston

    The world has always been a brutal place, and the history of man is one of violence, war and horror. It is only in recent times that man (Western man) has behaved as the benevolent teacher holding apart two fighting children. But if the teacher is labelled as wicked, racist, evil, etc etc and is forced to leave the scene, then the real violence and a return to brutal history can only happen.

    The Leftist hatred of normality and decency is an utterly unatural ideology that must inevitably unleash the horrors of the naturally violent world upon us. At that dawn of awakening point they will realise what they have done. But not before.

    So what do we do? I think it is time for revolution. Yes it will be unpleasant, but nowhere near as unpleasant as the future awaiting our innocent children and grandchildren.

    • Randy CA

      “The Leftist hatred of normality…”

      Indeed, they have even banished the word as being too hateful and bigoted.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I understand what you say about revolution. But I caution against it, since Civil War 2.0 will make version 1.0 seem like a Sunday School picnic, by comparison. It will take many years to resolve, and the end-result will be a divided nation, cities in flames, and millions of dead. It will be more than “unpleasant” …

      Be prepared, but don’t wish for it.

    • glpage

      I fear it is time for revolution. I believe we have been pushed past the point where we can fix what is wrong in this country peacefully. I hope I am wrong. I agree with Wolfthatknowsall, we should not wish for this revolution, but we do need to be prepared for it, it will be worse than the first Civil War.

      • Roy Adamson

        I’m not sure how a civil war would look. This isn’t the north against the south, this would be literally neighbor against neighbor, family members against family members.

    • Roy Adamson

      very well said Paul

    • LindaRivera

      Muslims are making great preparations to wage huge jihads against us. India is one of the countries targeted:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2694949/Al-Qaeda-plans-final-jihad-India-Intel-report-points-terror-recruitment-drive-targeting-nations-Muslims.html Al-Qaeda plans final jihad for India: Intel report points to terror recruitment drive targeting nation’s Muslims. Al-Qaeda is at the gates, and there are enough jihadis within already. Intelligence agencies say the terror network is making inroads into India, sowing the seeds of a “final war” across the country. Information gathered on al-Qaeda’s India plans points to a mobilisation of its resources for jihad. The ideological goal of the group, as detailed in the report, is chilling: Ghazwa-e-Hind, or the final battle in India. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2694949/Al-Qaeda-plans-final-jihad-India-Intel-report-points-terror-recruitment-drive-targeting-nations-Muslims.html

      British and European traitor leaders actively aid and abet the huge jihads planned against our tiny nations. Our people who warn about the terrible dangers from Islam are viciously persecuted, prosecuted and sometimes jailed. You were arrested for quoting in public what Winston Churchill said about Islam. May God help us!

    • CapitalistPig

      Which was my one tiny bone to pick with the movie—I think it’s a pimple on a super models butt–but I wish it would have more strongly emphasized that for all of human history that we’ve bothered writing down, oppression, slavery, conquest, prisons, rape, torture have been pretty much the accepted norm. From tribal warfare to cities to city-states to nations–when war breaks out it’s generally been total war. Kill the males, cart off & enslave the females & if you’re not hanging around pour boiling oil over your enemy & sow his land with salt. No concept of rights or respect for human dignity existed much beyond the few that got the message of the Bible correct without perverting it.
      Then came the Founders with their ideas of self governance, government as a servant & individual rights.
      I know we didn’t get it perfect, slavery being the obvious conflict with those ideals, But the problems in American history can be traced to where we DIDN’T live up to those ideals–not the ideals themselves. The problem with the lefts criticism of our history becomes quite simple at this point–no one else in the world was on the right track–no other society was even trying to accomplish what we were experimenting with.

    • joeybot

      Yay, you’ll be the first I kill!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Leftists get their thinking from Critical Theory. Everything is compared to the Utopia of perfect “social justice.” IOW, their standard is Utopia but they imagine it as the future without the impedance of “oppressors” or “capitalists” who take the form of “Christian white supremacists,” Jewish “bankers,” the “one percent” and so forth.

    They think it’s as natural as Darwinistic evolution that if they defeat the best culture. their new culture will be superior, kind of organically. It feels like destiny to some of them.

    • glpage

      The left may found their beliefs in Critical Theory but the end result of what they are pushing is the lowest common denominator.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I agree. Critical Theory is merely the logical front end to all of their mendacious campaigns.

    • CapitalistPig

      How many times & in how many forums have I reminded liberals there is no “Utopia Option”. It just doesn’t exist.
      I like to point out we haven’t adopted the concept of universal (Utopian) cell phone ownership but somehow, free markets seem to have been able to produce so many phones at so many price entry points & plan coverages that we had homeless people taking pictures of the First Lady at a soup kitchen on those phones. Mind you, 30 years ago these were seen as space age devices–something you would see on the Jetson’s cartoon series.
      How is this possible without federal guidance?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        It’s easy to make someone feel like a victim if you know how to exploit their envy. And it’s easy to find envy in children, which is why they plant these mendacious ideas about social justice in children.

        How can a child understand that his mission in life is to learn how to be independent if we have schools that teach the exact opposite thing all day long?

        • CapitalistPig

          And teach it by design—-that’s even more appalling. This is no accident.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yep. It’s traitorous and absurd.

    • tagalog

      Critical Theory and logical positivism.

    • CDM

      It beggars belief that Howard Zinn’s screed is required reading in public schools. Why would anyone be read history as told by someone who was a Marxist?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Because Marx was thoroughly demonized but not adequately deconstructed to show why he deserved to be demonized. At least not to the public.

        And how people create wealth in large scale operations seems magical to some people. Technology seems magical and even organic to people.

        In the end, if you look around you and don’t understand the world and you don’t understand your envy, you may settle for explanations like those offered by Marx.

        But I do agree that it is shocking that US taxpayers would actually fund anything that promotes that kind of thinking.

        • Consider

          To deconstruct Marx one has to invest some intelectual effort, like for instance the intervention of Eugen Böhm Bawerk, which is difficult to follow as is the Marx’ original work.
          On the other side, idiocies like Virgin birth and Resurrection from the dead are accepted without any such inelectual exertion, on the contrary, one has to put its’ intelectual capacities at rest to accept such idiocies.

          • Guest

            Marx was a flawed individual who produced a flawed ideology based, not on compassion, but on self-aggrandizement.
            http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/07/of_marrx_and_men.html

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “On the other side, idiocies like Virgin birth and Resurrection from the dead are accepted without any such inelectual exertion, on the contrary, one has to put its’ intelectual capacities at rest to accept such idiocies.”

            What “other side?” Are you talking about the pope’s armies or something?

          • stew

            consider spellcheck, idiot.

      • Guest

        Because those who publish such textbooks are sympathetic to that message: Capitalism is exploitive & oppressive, Coercive Collectivism (Marxism) is Heaven on Earth (Moses Hess).

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Because those who publish such textbooks are sympathetic to that message…”

          Obviously. The question is why Americans should tolerate our taxes being used to fund any Marxist propaganda? Or any propaganda at all?

    • Richard

      The Left culture thinks it can create a Utopia, but instead, it will create a Dystopia, a “1984″ world, where a great centralized Fed Gov’t will rule over all the people of this nation, and the states will have little self rule. Government corruption (which we see so much of today) will expand do to human nature, devoid of the belief of a higher consciousness (divinity) with the forces of ego, which gives a hunger for power, the lack of truthfulness and outright dishonesty, will in the end cause collapse because of the weight of all these vices. Marxist philosophy ignores the higher nature, setting itself up for its own destruction (as we have seen in the past). In the words of Lenin, “Religion is the Opiate of the people.” That may be a partial truth, but real religion is to raise the lower beastial nature of man, to the divine nature, and merge the individual with the Absolute, God.

  • American Patriot

    We should not only tell the world the story of how great America is, but we should also tell the world how horrible Communism is beginning with how the Soviet Union formed and how horrible that country was. We could begin with Lenin’s rise to power in Russia and how he was an omnipotent, power-hungry monster who destroyed a great civilization. And here is some more information on Lenin: he was not the only murderer in his family. His older brother was also an extremist who murdered Czar Nicholas II’s grandfather, Czar Alexander II, in 1881. Alexander II was one of the more progressive Czars (and when I say “progressive”, I mean in the true sense of the word, not in the sense of how the reactionary left a.k.a. Communists and other radical leftists call themselves), since he abolished serfdom in Russia, which had been in place since the Middle Ages, made efforts that would eventually establish the Duma and some voting rights and many other reforms. Lenin overthrew a provisional government that had told Czar Nicholas II to abdicate the throne. But overthrowing the provisional government wasn’t enough for Lenin’s power-hungry ambitions. He and his Bolshevik murderous cult had to capture the Czar and his entire family and just execute them all, including the Czar’s son, who had hemophilia. And if that wasn’t enough, Lenin ordered the bodies hidden some where in the Ural Mountains region, where it took more than seventy years to discover the bodies and even then, not all of the bodies were discovered. The Czar’s family didn’t get a proper funeral until 1998, eighty years after they were killed by the Bolsheviks. The funeral was held by the only good post-Soviet Russian president, Boris Yeltsin (who was pro-democratic and pro-Western, unlike his successor, Vladimir Putin, who is a neo-Communist). After establishing the worst country to have ever existed in human history, the Bolsheviks then ruled the USSR for over seventy years. George Washington and Vladimir Lenin have virtually nothing in common, just like Jesus and Muhammad have nothing in common. George Washington and Jesus were good people who did good deeds to improve their societies. Lenin and Muhammad are evil people who harmed societies.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Saw the movie earlier this week. Great movie.

  • DaCoachK

    I’ve seen both his films and read all of his books. D’Soouza is the type of man this nation once produced routinely. Not any more. I am a high school teacher. The USA, as Dinesh and millions of others knew it, is dead and won’t be back. Fascism has come to America under the guise of civil rights and equality.

    • CapitalistPig

      Sadly you may be correct—D’Souza has been around a while too.

  • tagalog

    The most famous Asian-borne disease that devastated Europe was bubonic plague which repeatedly devastated Europe, in one instance killing 1/3 of the European population. Also, specifically regarding the New World, there’s syphilis. Roaming a bit farther afield, it was the New World that produced tobacco.

  • FrankTalk14

    D’Souza’s film sounds, from the description in this essay, as agitprop indeed. But I will see the film for myself and draw my conclusions.

  • Consider

    That there were slavery in Mezopotamia 4,000 years ago (or in Togo today) is no excuse for the existence of slavery in the land the proclaimed that ‘ … Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…. are undeniable rights’ presumably for all people, until some 150 years ago.
    BTW it is strange that in most products of fiction (of Holywood and others) the Southern party is depicted as noble warriors fghting for a right cause (but regretably lost), while the Northerners are depicted as brute and ruthless conquerors that plundered and humiliated the vanquished.
    So much for the 300,000 Union soliders that fell for , hmmmm, what?

    • Ivan Ewan

      Gone With The Wind did that a bit. Not that I care – there wasn’t a single likeable character in it from start to finish.

      • ratonis

        What about Prissy? :)

        • Ivan Ewan

          AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!

          Worse than Jar-Jar Binks.

      • Consider

        The ‘Birth of a Nation’ is another example, but almost in all other films that the subject is touched upon, the heroes or/and remnants of the Confederate army are the good guys, and the others are the scum of the earth.
        Ask Clint Eastwood in how many such films he has taken part.

    • glpage

      Interesting that you should point out that fictional works elevate the southerners as noble. The south was the home of the Democratic party in those days, the party that strove to protect slavery. So, we have an industry that has tended to leftism building up a leftist group that advocated what they are doing to blacks today, keeping them under their thumbs.

      • Consider

        Things change.
        Barry Goldwater, a Republican, was in his day a promotor of science and technology.
        Today the Republicans advance Intelligent deisgn, creationism, and other cretinism.
        That’s life.

        • glpage

          Very few conservatives believe that silliness, in fact, a study at Yale showed that conservatives tend to know more about science than liberals and leftists. So, things haven’t changed that much. Except liberals just can’t accept the facts put forth by that study. Then again, lots of leftists believe in anthropogenic global warming, that they are smarter than anyone who disagrees with them, the intelligence of Barak Obama, and other provable idiotic thoughts.

          BTW, cretinism is a syndrome marked by stunted physical and mental growth caused by congenital insufficient thyroid hormones that was not treated.

          • Consider

            cretin (ˈkrɛtɪn) — n 1. old-fashioned a person afflicted with cretinism 2. offensive a person considered to be extremely stupid C18: from French crétin, from Swiss French crestin, from Latin Chrīstiānus Christian…

          • glpage

            You obviously forgot what your original message said, which was “Today the Republicans advance Intelligent deisgn, creationism, and other cretinism.” Perhaps you have had some affliction caused by a congenital thyroid insufficiency.

            Good spelling by the way.

          • Consider

            I would need some clarification of what you have written here.
            Am I right in supposing that the word ‘cretinism’ throw you despair?

          • glpage

            Given that you seem to have a need to define cretin (obviously copied and pasted) after using cretinism in an inappropriate fashion I believe your response has confirmed my conjecture.

          • Consider

            “a congenital disease due to absence or deficiency of normal thyroid secretion, characterized by physical deformity, dwarfism, and mental retardation, and often by goiter.”
            I draw your attention to the MENTAL RETARDATION part. So the term was used correctlly given the cfontext.
            BTW, of course that I copy/paste these things.
            I am not in business of inventing new semantics.

          • tagalog

            If we’re going to get all French, please allow me to state my preference for the term “bête,” as it expressly carries with it the inference of not only being stupid, but bestial. Never let it be said that the French couldn’t fashion short insults that carry a multitude of meanings.

          • Consider

            “bête,” means only being stupid.
            “bestial” means, well, bestial.

          • tagalog

            I always thought “bête” means “beast,” and it is idiomatic that it means “stupid.”

          • Consider

            In the context we were talking about it means, stupid.

            It also means “beast, animal, brute, idiot, dimwit, lout”, but not “bestial”.

          • tagalog

            I was certain that you could not resist making a personal attack sooner rather than later.

            Get bent, moron.

          • Consider

            What personal attack?????

          • tagalog

            You know there’s a difference between intelligent design and creationism, right? Among cosmologists, there’s a degree of respect for intelligent design.

          • Consider

            I doubt it.
            The ID label has been adopted as deception (in order to sound ‘scientific’) after creationism has been discredited in court as unscientific that is, religion..

          • Consider

            ‘Very few conservatives believe that silliness,…’
            Among those few is Ann Coulter, the mouthpiece of the conservative, hmm, ‘movement’.

    • Gislef

      Did someone say that slavery 100+ years ago in the U.S. should be “excused”?

      The point is how much better or worse the U.S., has been throughout its history, compared to other countries.

      • Consider

        ‘Once again D’Souza emphasizes that singling out America for the sins of the word is a fool’s errand because slavery existed in every culture in the world from the Egyptians to the Chinese to the African to the American Indians (long before Columbus) and, as we are reminded, slavery exists even today.’
        If this is not an excuse, than the very notion of ‘excuse’ i meaningless.

        • CapitalistPig

          It isn’t an excuse–& the point D’Souza is making is America didn’t use the crutch of saying “everybody else does it”.
          Slavery ended in other countries due to insurrections from the slaves themselves or external conquest, sometimes using the slaves within the target country to turn on their owners–a tactic employed by the British during our Revolution. And that usually ended in another form of enslavement from the conquering nation.
          D’Souza’s point is astonishing if you think about it–America is the only country historians can find that fought a civil war on moral grounds to end the practice. Slaves themselves mostly sat on the sidelines–though some regiments were formed in both the north & south (if you can believe that.) That is unique in world history. It doesn’t make us perfect & he isn’t arguing we were–it does however, make us unique.
          There’s a reason this country is a hyper-power (or was anyway, until this batch got a hold of it) & why people throw their kids on the tops of trains by themselves for 1300 mile journeys & will sit in leaky boats in shark infested waters for days to get here.

          • Consider

            Well, slavery was abolished in 1864 (if I remember well, without consulting the records).
            Were the Confederation crushed in, say, 1863 slavery would remain.

          • tagalog

            The Emancipation Proclamation was first drafted right after Antietam and issued a few months later, effective January 1, 1863.

          • CapitalistPig

            But that’s not what happened. Any other outcome is speculation.

          • Consider

            Allegedly 300.000 union soliders died to abolish slavery.

            But we see that slavery was partially abolished only in the third (or fourth) year of the war.

            “In 1861, Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states.”
            So strong was the anti-slavery sentiment, and oppostion to slavery a motivation to go to war.

    • CapitalistPig

      Quoting fiction & Hollywood to make a point?…… That explains it.

      • Consider

        Yes, and what’s wrong with it?
        If one lionized the Nazis as the Sotherners are glorified in popular culture in the US, the society in which such thing happened would be characterized as sick and dangerous.

        • CowboyUp

          Maybe that’s because Southerners weren’t interested in subjugating the North, genocide, dictatorship, or subscribe to a totalitarian ideology. The inability to see the difference is pretty sick and dangerous.

          • Consider

            “Maybe that’s because Southerners weren’t interested in subjugating the North”…
            Well they tried to occupy Washington, and regarding other blessings that you cite, it maybe their way of life that included the ‘peculiar institution’ that they were fighting for, looks much worse than dictatorship and totalitarian ideology.
            Regarding genocide I do not really know who tried to make it come about.

      • tagalog

        Well, you’d be right except for the fact that the fiction and the Hollywood version, as Consider points out, is what so many people think is the truth.

        • CapitalistPig

          Perception becomes reality–it’s sad but it is a truism for a reason.

    • CapitalistPig

      You also understand the abolitionist movement sprung from & was primarily fueled by what would be called today “the religious fundamentalist nut wad right that wants to impose its morality on the rest of us”.
      I’ll take the honor of those 300,000 Union soldiers back now.

      • Consider

        Slavery was also fueled and justified by religious arguments (among others).

        • CapitalistPig

          “Among others”…..”others” being most every culture, tribe & government conceived.
          It isn’t as though people were living in perfect libertarian harmony & folks said “Oh, look here, this religion allows slavery–let’s adopt that & we can all be right by God”
          No way to prove it because it’s going back to prehistory so we have no written record–but I strongly suspect the concept of slavery in one form or another was being practiced before we had dreamt up the idea of supreme beings who guide us on developing a moral code.

          • Consider

            By ‘others’ I meant other arguments, not other cultures, tribes & governments.

            Anyhow, when one proclaims that “…all men are created equal, and endowed by some undeniable rights …etc. etc.”, and then almost a century into the system based on these principles a real, palpable, nonmetaphorical slavery persisted, then one cannot compare oneself with ancient Egypt, Asyria, Babylon or the present day Burkina Faso, but admit that something with America was deeply wrong.

            BTW the 1936 Stalin’s constitution of the USSR was by all accounts a jewell of democracy, liberty, and all other ingredients of a modern democratic state, but nevertheless millons ended in Gulags.

        • tagalog

          D’Souza’s movie quotes Abraham Lincoln arguing that the United States Constitution would not have been adopted, and the United States formed, without a consciously temporary accommodation of slavery; the movie goes on to quote him as saying that the Constitution and its provisions regarding equality provide a framework within which we can all strive to perfect the founders’ vision. An interesting and worthy argument that preserves the values of the Constitution without making it hypocritical. It’s clear that Martin Luther King, Jr,, whether he was conscious of it or not, agreed with Lincoln’s formulation.

          • Consider

            Well that resembles something that I mentioned somewhere below (or above):
            magnificent constitution, but you end up in the GULAG.

  • LindaRivera

    Proud to be an infidel! Proud to be a Christian and proud of Western civilisation which is based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. The Muslim Brotherhood have declared they intend to destroy Western civilisation. Our people face the greatest threat humanity has ever faced: Islam. The EU, British and European leaders have colonised each one of our tiny countries with millions of muslims from huge Muslim countries who are taught to take non-muslims for slaves.

    Why Is This Not Treason? by Paul Weston, Liberty GB

    Thirty-three percent of Muslim students in Britain think killing in the
    name of Islam is permissible. Only thirty-seven percent oppose the
    introduction of Sharia law and only twenty-five percent oppose the
    creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate.
    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6024-why-is-this-not-treason

    LIBERTY GB: Freedom and the West
    …..’In 2011 Sheik Abu Ishak Al
    Huweini at Al-Azhar University in Cairo (the most respected university
    in the entire Muslim world) proudly told his brother Muslims that it was
    their duty to engage in violent jihad and that one day each Muslim
    would have 3 or 4 white Western slaves.’….
    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/6213-freedom-and-the-west

    “Slavery
    is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as
    long there is Islam.” – Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a leading authority on
    Islam in Saudi Arabia.

    • Roy Adamson

      When the bible speaks of being killed for being a christian or jew and the people doing the killing doing it in the name of God….anyone come to mind?

      • LindaRivera

        When muslims murder Jews and Christians, the muslims scream out praise and worship to their muslim god.

  • Realist

    “He also offers fair warning to the historical revisionists. “We won’t let them shame us. We won’t let them intimidate us. We are going to start telling the true story of America,” he declares.”
    Try telling THAT to the establishment RINOs in congress who have decided – Along with wealthy party aparatchiks – To tacitly accept libcult doctrine and false premises in order to remain in power. Those who have been in congress long enough eventually sucumb to the relentless attacks of the libcult media machine and stop trying to give voice to conservative principals. They form the phalanx of entrenched establishment RINOs who now work actively to OPPOSE any and all conservative ideas and philosophy in order to 1) remain unattacked and 2) in office to dole out the perks to their big money donors as best they can.
    They are the same cabal who workrf hand-in-hand with democRATs in MIssissippi to ensure THEIR establishment crony was reelected. What this really means is that conservatives now have a two-front war on their hands along with a fifth collumn of RINO sellouts eager to cash-in on their willingness to sellout any and all conservatives and conservative principles. These RINO etsablishment types need to pay a very heavy price for their vebal fecklessness and “establishment purity”.

  • Lanna

    This is an excellent movie…so well done, with historical facts of God, the Founding fathers and strife that all nations go through, especialy the reenactments of historical battles……..Most countries were formed by conquest….lots of history that people forgot or didn’t know about! DSousa has a real hit!

  • Sheik Yerbouti

    So is the leftist press telling us that Dinesh is a “White-Indian” or some such thing by slapping “rac|st” label onto the film? Or is any sort of American a “rac|st” these days? Except, of course, the benevolent blacks!

    • tagalog

      I think they tend to think of D’Souza as some sort of conservative sock puppet that is dragged out to show that there are immigrants who can be turned into some sort of ethnic Uncle Toms. But then there’s the staunchly pro-American Texan of Mexican heritage who says in the movie that if the American Southwest were to return to Mexico he’d move to Milwaukee.

      • Sheik Yerbouti

        Interesting example, Uncle Tom. Proof that most blacks don’t read a book all the way through. Uncle Tom was a hero!

  • GhostFlame

    Hopefully, will see this movie this Sunday. And hopefully, with more than just one other person.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I saw it, last week, though I had to drive a distance to get to the theater. It was shown in DuPage County … suburban to Chicago. We just managed to to get in, and there were a couple of hundred people waiting in line, behind us, for the next showing.

      • fallssshort

        That’s awesome. I saw it in a liberal town in bright blue Cali and the theater was packed and their were applauds, hoots and hollers during the credits.

    • CapitalistPig

      A good flick, you’ll enjoy it.

  • carpe diem 36

    “the work” I am sure this is a typo, and meant to say the world. Mr. Ahlert, you should check your article better so that you do not create confusion.

  • Cappy1437

    Thank you D’Souza for your wonderful book and movie. As for Sinegal and Brotman, you didn’t build that company, Costco. You know that don’t you? You didn’t do that according to Obama. And if you’re wealthy, hand over your money. Give it to the government so they can hand it out to all the takers who have their hands out wanting freebies that they don’t want to work for. Obama wants income equality. You do know that is what Obama wants you to do, don’t you? Obviously you’re following him like the pied piper so you both are stupid and deserve to be ground into the pavement. America is very fortunate to have people like Dinesh D’Souza who honor and respect America. Costco will now never stand for honor and respect. What it will represent is a sad time in the history of America.

    • glpage

      Handing over one’s money does not apply to wealthy leftists. If you look at the wealthiest people in this country, you probably will find that half, if not more, lean very firmly left. They support idiots like Obama who will gladly push the government to screw the middle class so they can gain even more wealth. Socialism in this country is not going to help everyone become middle class, it will destroy the middle class to preserve the wealth of the oligarchs.

      • CapitalistPig

        Sounds like Ann Coulter’s line–she wants a HUGE tax increase on billionaires because “it would only apply to liberals”……I know it’s a little tongue in cheek But it does make a point.

  • carpe diem 36

    I saw that movie yesterday and the crowd was very enthusiastic both during its showing and by “bravos” after. It is very well done, very thoughtful and very intelligent, and included footage I have not see anywhere else.

  • carpe diem 36

    It takes an foreign born American to see the good and just in this country and create such a pro American and proud of it and optimistic for it. for sure no Michal Moore with his garbage “movies”. What a difference between the high and the low movie makers.

  • mtnhikerdude

    We are doomed as a Nation. Eight years of “America / White People Haters” in D.C. was is enough time to destroy a Nation. When u have to press one for English in your own Country you have already lost.

  • mtnhikerdude

    D.C. is hoping for another Obama voter to go on a shooting rampage so they can come for our weapons b4 the “TRAITOR” leaves office in 2016.

  • CapitalistPig

    The leftists at Media Matters labeled it “racially charged agitprop”?—-I promise you, that review was written before that fella ever saw the flick. Media Matters probably just pre-prints editorials for publication & then fills in the name of the book or movie when it comes out.
    The left, pulling the race card?……………………No! Say it ain’t so!

  • garyhope

    Is this quote “What would the work look like if America did not exist?” supposed to read “What would the WORLD look like if America did not exist?”

  • Giles Blyzzard

    I rarely go to the movies because they hold little interest for me. I’ve been to about 10 movies in the last 30 years, the last one when my girlfriend dragged me to see “At First Sight” when we were on a Caribbean cruise. But I am really looking forward to seeing this one. From reading the article it sounds great.

    • fallssshort

      If you’re starving for patriotism and shots of interesting truth, than you’re going to love it.

  • Nabukuduriuzhur

    Something I’ve often wondered is what the Indians were doing that left them prey to epidemics.

    People think it was just european and asian diseases, but Indian lore indicates that epidemics before 1500 were extremely common.

    Was it a lack of vitamin C in the diet? Was it because so many tribes used the sweatlodge/stream treatment, which often killed from heart attack?

    Was it lack of sanitation? Contamination of water supplies? Eating food that had spoiled? What was it?

    There had to be some reason for the high mortality from viruses and bacteria. Europeans died en masse from smallpox and other ailments, so it wasn’t genetic.

    It’s not genetics, because indians today don’t have any specific major susceptibility to viral or bacterial pathogens. The old wheeze about not being exposed to the diseases before is hogwash because people all over this planet before ~1900′s immunizations generally died before the age of 5 and many of the disease damage the immune system, not build it up. Survivors of major illnesses are often screwed up, and despite the nietzchian foolishness, what doesn’t kill you generally makes you weaker. It used to be very common for people all across the planet to have lifelong problems from this or that childhood disease.

    • CowboyUp

      A lot of it was relative isolation from the rest of the world. Smallpox was new to them, as was bubonic plague. The Indians were hit with several new high mortality plagues relatively at once, and the effect was cumulative. The Europeans didn’t have resistance to new world diseases either, but there was a never ending supply of them arriving.

      You hit on a lot of critical factors, and it’s how those factors combine, accumulate, and counteract each other that determines susceptibility, resistance, or immunity in individuals and populations. I think you’re looking for something cut and dried, but you’ll rarely find that in immunology.

      • tagalog

        I don’t recall any historical accounts of Indians in America suffering from bubonic plague. I suppose because American Indians are of Asian descent, and bubonic plague is an Asian disease.

        American Indians died in mass numbers from measles and smallpox, as did European Americans and Europeans in general. We tend to think of measles as just a childhood rite of passage, and smallpox as something that grandpa and grandpa sometimes show their vaccination scar to the kids, but once they were scourges to everyone, not just Indians.

        • CowboyUp

          I’ve seen old drawings of sick Indians with the rings, and I may be wrong, but I think those are distinctive of Bubonic Plague. Smallpox originated in Asia too, but the Indians had no knowledge of it and it hit the Indians very hard. The ones who migrated to America may not have been exposed to it, or lost any resistance they had over the ages. Like I said, it’s not cut and dried.

          Diphtheria is another disease we don’t associate with death that killed most of the children that caught it, and about 20% of the adults. Like many diseases, a person that survives it is much less likely to catch it again, especially if they come in contact with it often enough to keep the antibodies to it in their blood. Chicken Pox is one whose mortality rate is very high in adults, but very low in children.

          • tagalog

            Yes, and we don’t understand how devastating cholera was anymore either. Or TB, “bloody flux.” It just hasn’t been an issue for a century or so.

  • Steve

    I personally can’t wait until this curry eatin racist is picking up soap at Rikers Island. Poetic justice.

    • CowboyUp

      “Curry eatin racist,” and “picking up soap,” tells anyone that doesn’t already know, that you’re a projecting homophobic racist, uptown. Your reaction also tells the world that Dsouza is on target.

      • 95Theses

        I will never get my mind around why some persons are driven to comment on Conservative websites like FPM or National Review or Commentary or Breitbart (what have you). Such a waste, that to validate its existence the heart full of malice must create disruption in forums where they know that they are not welcome.
        I am convinced that a real sickness of the mind and soul festers away within their deepest interiors. Such individuals must be
        miserable beings, indeed.

        • CowboyUp

          I look at it as unintentional validation of the article or post. It seems Frontpage often leaves them up, I assume and concur, so readers can better understand how the left rolls. They often help make the point of the article, as “Consider” does earlier in this comment section.

    • fallssshort

      Wow! Irony abounds in your comment. Seriously?

    • UCSPanther

      You call everyone racist, and then you turn around and make racist comments about everyone else.

      There’s a word for you: Hypocrite.

    • Webb

      Koooom-bi-yaaaaaa say Steve, Koooooom-bi-yaaaaaaa . . . Lead us in a old negro spritchul, brothuh.

  • meanpeoplesuck

    Dinesh dSouza , another TeaBanging hypocrite who couldn’t keep it in his pants, lecturing us on values. Why anybody listens to a word he says is a mystery.

    • tagalog

      I agree; what you have to say is so much more enlightening. Especially with regard to your personal qualities.

    • UCSPanther

      How you can be so stupid and delusional is a mystery to me.

    • joannes

      I would like to know what you mean by:

      “Dinesh dSouza , another TeaBanging hypocrite who couldn’t keep it in his pants, lecturing us on values.” Do you have any real FACTS to add to this statement? I come from an era and upbringing where if you have something to say and you want to be believed, you should have some facts, links, proof of that which you want to charge about another person.

  • lavonbsawyer

    My Uncle
    Joshua just got an almost new white Kia Rio Hatchback only from working
    part-time off a home computer. try this C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Consider

    ‘they honor the service of their warriors’ !!!

    What would you say if someone honored the services of Johann Günther Lütjens (the commander of the ‘Bismarck’), Otto Skozerny (the commando), Walter Novotny (the air ace), and similar characters, but not the CAUSE of Nazism.
    The first metioned was honored in West Germany by naming a Bundesmarine destroyer after him, without ambushes IEDs etc.

    • tagalog

      I bet the two survivors of the HMS Hood didn’t join in the honoring of Lutjens.

    • CapitalistPig

      People do this all the time. The Germans still honor their war dead. So do the Japanese. They honor the service of their military with the full acknowlegement of the evils of the men who ordered them into combat–that isn’t a knock on the soldiers themselves. I just don’t see your point.

      • Consider

        Never seen a German film (or some other artistic form) that depicts the WWII German military as fighting for a just cause. Regarding the Japanese, their occasional stupid honoring of certain characters from the WWII, produces furor all over East Asia.
        On the contrary, the message in American films (at least most of them, and at least the best known of them) is that the men were brave and that the cause was just.
        The only problem was that they lost.

        • CapitalistPig

          Which makes my point.
          In German films, the soldiers on the ground fought bravely–but the cause was not just.
          Does not the relatively recent movie “Valkyrie” with Tom Cruise essentially make that point?—& there is a statue in honor Claus Von Stauffenberg & his co-conspirators.
          Because they were the exceptions in the German High Command.
          Do you really think any society or race is going to engage in the self flagellation of its foot soldiers as you’re suggesting? Only crazy liberals who over think these things do. You might hate America, the rest of us acknowledge our history, our shortcomings, where we need to improve as a people–& we honor our dead–just like every society. Then we try to move forward & not repeat the mistakes of the past.

          • Consider

            “Valkyrie”, as far as know is not a German movie.

            Furthermore it depicts a conflict within German leadership(no foot soliders involved), that happened only when it was clear that the war was lost. It was a conflict among Germans.Therefore Stauffenberg & co do not deserve such high moral standing as you may suggest.
            Regarding self flagellation, it seems easy for most American authors to (self) flagellate the North (cowards, incompetents, predators, carpetbaggers, etc) despite that they should be considered as their society and their race, and fought for an apparentlly just cause.
            BTW I didn’t see that the French honor the Petain supporters. When some from your society and your race do bullshit, that must be clearly said.

          • CapitalistPig

            Wasn’t my point to state that Valkyrie was a German movie or represented all of them. I reread my post & I can understand that it could have been construed as such so I’ll take that hit. It is an informal forum.
            But if you wish to—then hate America—hey, go for it guy. Can’t help you. But societies just flat tend not to disgrace their foot soldiers with the sins of their leaders. It’s just a fact.
            The French didn’t treat all Vichy supporters all that well either—in that case the French got it right for a change.

          • Consider

            It’s not about hating America but about D’Souza’s argument(s).
            Once America is exceptional,,in the next breath it’s not any different from ancient Egypt or today’s Northern Nigeria.
            Those who brought about the downfall of slavery are praised, but we know (as the discussion here shows, I am not the only one who noticed this phenomenon) that in fact large sections of American society side with the slaveowners.
            And so on…
            Regarding German films the one that comes nearest to your theory is ‘Das Boot’. But there the main message is the absurdity of war.
            Generally the Germans after war produced films dealing with the plight of Jews or softporn films.

  • wholerest

    As a former bookstore owner (over 12,000 title, at one time, and the ‘net, of course), at one point in my life I had hours, upon hours, upon hours to, well, read (and with both purpose and happenstance). Eventually, I was able to UNLEARN MOST of the twisted/sick/hateful indoctrination(s) I had ingested during my time spent (and my money) as a college undergrad. It took effort, and a willful attempt to open my eyes, my heart, and the logical parts of my brain to different points of reason (which were accessed via history, sociology, economics, biography, philosophy, etc). As my life progressed (actual progression, not the pseudo intellectual claptrap progressives tend to throw about attempting to get said “claptrap” to stick on something/anything), I, well, unlearned so much, and learned much more. I came to an understanding and acceptance that what I once was (a liberal, more a classical liberal than anything, I suppose, but a liberal and card carrying democrat through Clinton’s first run), was, well, in the big picture–in a state of delusion (of sorts). Yes, I could function in reality, but I always had an acute feeling of a surreal state when dealing with the political aspects of my life. Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the “surreal state” I felt was, indeed, a conflict within my brain/self/soul/etc caused by (and became the physical manifestations of) my liberal indoctrination (s). The transition is still, I believe, in progress, but making good headway, etc.

    I will profess that I find most liberals I have known (many, and not just in college; I have taught at the college level for well over a decade) to be caught (often willingly) in a sort of bi-polar state wavering between a constant flux of, both, intense masochism and intense narcissism. The constant flux (and friction) between these two, often unhealthy, states of being causing many (if not most) liberals to be some of the most confused, angry, and, ultimately unhappy people on the face of planet Earth. . .

    • Jason Clark

      Dinesh can definitely help you “unlearn” things…

      Dinesh: “You say, ‘Give us back the Black Hills,’ You point out that there is uranium and other minerals in those hills, and now that land is worth a fortune. Once again, no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it. Other Americans have added value to the Black Hills by figuring out how to tap its resources, and now the Indians want the land back so they can take advantage of what others have figured out how to do.”

      +

      Government Archives: “The Black Hills of Dakota are sacred to the Sioux Indians. In the 1868 treaty, signed at Fort Laramie and other military posts in Sioux country, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. However, after the discovery of gold there in 1874, the United States confiscated the land in 1877. To this day, ownership of the Black Hills remains the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux.”

      =

      “‘Give us back the Black Hills,’” … Was said before the discovery of uranium there.

      “no Indian tribe knew how to mine uranium and no Indian tribe knew what to do with uranium if they had it” … Neither did any white guy, in 1877.

      “and now the Indians want the land back” … They never wanted to leave.

      1920: Native Black Hills land claim makes it to court.
      1956: Uranium discovered in Black Hills

      • tagalog

        On the issue of the Black Hills, D’Souza’s movie points out that the Sioux won their lawsuit over the United States’ breaking of the Fort Laramie Treaty. The United States Supreme Court took evidence and judged the value of the Black Hills at a handsome sum in 1979, and awarded the Sioux that amount, which continues to be held in trust for the Sioux and is valued by the movie at $1 billion.

        The movie correctly notes that the Sioux have rejected the money and instead want the land returned to them. Interestingly, the movie also correctly points out that the Black Hills (and the Big Horn Mountains, also “sacred” to the Sioux) were owned by the Cheyenne and Arapahoe before the Sioux and were conquered in war by the Sioux. Have the Sioux made any payment to the Cheyenne and the Arapahoe?

        • Jason Clark

          That they’d rather have the land, that they never wanted to leave and always wanted back, instead of money, proves what?

          …and the Sioux were pushed West by the Chippewa, and the Chippewa were pushed West by the White man. That’s all just misdirection. Who had a legal treaty with the US government, regarding the Black Hills?

          • tagalog

            The Black Hills and the Big Horn Mountains.

          • Jason Clark

            You wanted me to add some value to Dinesh’s pointless point for you? Not possible.

          • tagalog

            I don’t know what it proves; what do YOU think it proves?

          • Jason Clark

            Lol, you brought it up. I can tell you it doesn’t prove Dinesh’s above statement is any more true. It’s still almost totally devoid of facts. The single part of his above statement that could be considered true is “Other Americans have added value to the Black Hills by figuring out how to tap its resources”, but for that to be any kind of factor you’d have to believe either a) that Natives would have added zero value to the area, if they had owned it for the past 150 years, or b) that what Dinesh considers value has more weight than what the Natives consider value.

        • specialb2014

          AWWW see, THIS is an actual thinker.

          Do we care about pan-native americans or just the individual tribes?

          Someone got caught applying a nationality issue to a racial one.

          Typical leftwingers, amirite?

  • tagalog

    I just got back from seeing the movie about an hour ago. It was worth the price of admission. He outlines several issues raised by those who decry America one or the other, then answers them systematically. Not all of his arguments are completely effective, but most of them are quite compelling. A good movie. I’m glad I paid the price of theater admission not only because it was worth the money, but also because I want to add to the statistics regarding its popularity.

  • Mel

    This president doesn’t believe about himself that he has a blind spot ! It’s huge ! Personally, I’ve lost all hope ! Too many blind 99%’ers, too ! Too many Americans who think that the Productive and Productive Effort should be punished rather than Rewarded ! And then they are confused about why it goes away over time !

  • tagalog

    The conventional wisdom about the soldiers of the Confederacy is that they were honorable men who fought gallantly for a bad cause. Most of us accept that, whatever the truth is.

    For a while in the 1960s and 1970s, Hollywood tried the same thing with the Germans in World War II, making a distinction between the Wehrmacht and the SS. See, for one example among many, The Guns of Navarone. My dad, a World War II veteran, said that the only difference is that the Wehrmacht were enthusiasts while the SS were fanatics.

    • CapitalistPig

      My dad never gave me that impression–though there was a big distinction between the ferocity of the hatred between what the Germans felt about the allies fighting on the eastern front (Russians) as opposed to the western front. Capture for either side was essentially a death sentence in the east. Atrocities happened on the western front but not as a matter of virtual policy. Hard to believe, but Herman Goering actually treated allied pilots quite well in the Luftwaffe POW camps. My father never had the issue with the Germans they captured–most of them were relieved that for them, the war was over.
      A sort of funny sidebar—-he steadfastly refused to watch Hogan’s Heroes.

  • Consider

    Communism lasted only 72 years, an eye blink in the 5000 years of known history of mankind, so what.all the fuss about it.
    I am not talking (in fact writting) about what ought to be written in the constitution but what was written and not implemented.
    The pace of events was not slow in the 18th century. The Declaration of Independece was published in 1776 and Britain was forced to recognize the independence in 1783 after a mere 7 years (and after a war of course), despite that rule over other people was a long honored tradition, almost as long as slavery.
    The abolition of slavery took approximately 10 times longer.
    When one sincerly wants something one gets something.

    • CapitalistPig

      Equality was written in from the beginning, but only full equality in half the states. It was, oddly the northern states that didn’t want to count blacks, not the southern ones. Southerners wanted them counted as whole citizens–but only for apportionment of representatives. Northern states basic retort was “hey, I thought blacks were property! If that’s the case we can just go ahead & count goats, sheep, cattle & chickens for our share of representative apportionment” That’s why we had the 3/5s compromise–to get a deal & move forward. Slaves would have been FAR worse off under a totally independent south. But the fact that the north held out as long as it did on that issue is, by itself, evidence that new thinking was afoot–even if they didn’t get it perfect the first time. (Now we’re being fed the next lie- that gays are 7/5s human, that you get rights based on who you exchange bodily fluids with–but that’s for another day). No state north or south ever thought that was the end of the issue. Recognition of a treaty or Declaration is a much faster process than wholesale changes in cultural norms & belief systems. What happened in the US really did happen in an eyeblink, relative to history. Those usually take generations, especially in pre-industrial revolution times.

      Lots of different versions of communism have been tried. That government is master is nothing new or unique to that form of oppression. Communism is nothing more than tarted up feudalism.

      Frankly, I’m too far in the weeds with someone who has convinced himself. So just keep “considering” because I think you’re just over thinking this myself.
      We used to call it “paralysis by analysis” in the AF. Most of the time, the obvious answer is the right answer. American hyper-power & freedom should be evidence enough. But just keep “considering”.

      • Consider

        Thank you for the detailed explanation of the reasons for the persistence of slavery, but none of them seem justified, or noble.
        If anything we see that the South was ready to cheat early on, and the North was indifferent for the human right aspects of the problem, looking only to the political side.
        Anyhow I am tired of this discussion too.
        So, period!

  • specialb2014

    My problem with the film isn’t that it goes after the left, my problem is that it whitewashes a lot of stuff.

    Other then that, if you’re keen and don’t mind a ham fisted, republican “conservative” flick, this is an interesting film, but once again, it whitewashes the facts.

    Have fun watching it, but don’t show it to the learned, conservative circles or patriots, they’ll laugh at you.

  • Bob Cohen

    Seriously? “Yet the bet here is a lot of Americans would like to see a movie that
    contains stories about the goodness and greatness of our nation.” Yeah they would. Just like they ate up Ronald Regan’s lies about American Exceptionalism in the 1980s as he broke the bank with military spending, ran up the national debt, presided over 19% mortgage interest rates, Black Monday, the S&L crisis. It’s hard for me to imagine a world in which Americans do not examine all of what has brought us to this place, and that includes the seamy things. Here’s what I have to say about D’Sousa and his merry band of conservative followers– and you too Mr. Alhert. http://www.bobjcohen.com/america-imagine-world-without/ It’s ironic to me that you complain about the blame culture while blaming the people with whom you disagree. Nothing drives me crazier than seeing intolerant bullies adopt the language and mannerism of true victims. In case you don’t have one at home, I’ve got a mirror. You should try really looking at what you see.

  • orygone

    what a horrible movie done by a slimey liar. you guys will believe anything this idiot shovels

  • orygone

    nope