Hillary, The NY Times Called, What Successes?

Editor’s Note – It amazes us at SUA that people across the land still consider Hillary Rodham Clinton as a viable Presidential candidate anymore. The reasons must follow that too many people are still ill-informed, have willingly suspended disbelief, have a cognitive estrangement with the truth, and/or are so deeply ideological, even her failures do not count.

In fact, even she cannot cite any successes for which she is responsible in her years as Secretary of State or as a Senator from New York. When the New York Times points these issues out, it surely is time for America to take notice, peel the scales from their eyes, and come back to reality.

Today’s abysmal results of her foreign policy efforts on behalf of her boss, Barrack Obama, are telling to say the least. When we look at the current state of Ukraine, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, China, Myanmar, Venezuela, Cuba, and many more corners of the Earth; each display daily a cause of major concern. It is not a good time to be an ally of the United States – we are no longer to be trusted; we are less than a paper tiger.U.S. Secretary of State Clinton pounds her fists while testifying on the Benghazi attacks during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in Washington

Failure is the only consistent thing in her resume, going all the way back to the Whitewater scandal when her husband was Attorney General and then Governor of Arkansas and into his first campaign for the Presidency, then through the Travel Office Scandal when he took office, to Benghazi and beyond. Let’s not forget her allegiance and sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood through her assistant Huma Abedin and the Clinton Global Initiative that is supported by these types.

“At this point, what difference does it make?”

Remember, she was the one who chose Christopher Stevens as Ambassador to Libya and watched idly as he and three others died horribly, as well as leaving over 30 other people at risk that day. We must point out one nefarious fact, her only success there was the jailing of a man who made a silly video.

We can cite one major accomplishment, she ranks at the top of the most traveled Secretaries of State ever – all with no positive result. If numbers of countries visited, miles traveled, or fuel burned, were what counted, at least those she is compared against at those levels had a major impact in keeping America’s reputation and influence at a continued high level, most unlike our standing today.

Hillary Clinton Struggles to Define a Legacy in Progress

By MARK LANDLER and AMY CHOZICK – New York Times

WASHINGTON — It was a simple question to someone accustomed to much tougher ones: What was her proudest achievement as secretary of state? But for a moment, Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing recently before a friendly audience at a women’s forum in Manhattan, seemed flustered.

Mrs. Clinton played an energetic role in virtually every foreign policy issue of President Obama’s first term, advocating generally hawkish views internally while using her celebrity to try to restore America’s global standing after the hit it took during the George W. Bush administration.

But her halting answer suggests a problem that Mrs. Clinton could confront as she recounts her record in Mr. Obama’s cabinet before a possible run for president in 2016: Much of what she labored over so conscientiously is either unfinished business or has gone awry in his second term.

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton's right hand - and that hand is Muslim Brotherhood aligned
Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s right hand – and that hand is Muslim Brotherhood aligned

From Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the grinding civil war in Syria to the latest impasse in the Middle East peace process, the turbulent world has frustrated Mr. Obama, and is now defying Mrs. Clinton’s attempts to articulate a tangible diplomatic legacy.

“I really see my role as secretary, and, in fact, leadership in general in a democracy, as a relay race,” Mrs. Clinton finally said at the Women in the World meeting, promising to offer specific examples in a memoir she is writing that is scheduled to be released in June. “I mean, you run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton.”

The relay metaphor has become a recurring theme for Mrs. Clinton during this year of speculation about her future. She did her part, it suggests, but the outcome was out of her hands. And so Mrs. Clinton is striking a delicate balance when discussing a job that would be a critical credential in a presidential race.

On the one hand, she wants credit for the parts of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy that have worked, like the pressure campaign against Iran over its nuclear program, which she helped orchestrate and which has pulled Iran to the bargaining table.

On the other, she is subtly distancing herself from the things that have not worked out, like Mr. Obama’s “reset” of relations with Russia. She recently likened President Vladimir V. Putin’s annexation of Crimea to actions by Hitler in the 1930s, and posted on Twitter a photograph of herself with members of Pussy Riot, the protest group that is Mr. Putin’s nemesis.

Mrs. Clinton’s Republican opponents, losing no time in trying to define her, note that she gave Russia’s foreign minister the infamous mistranslated red plastic button to reset relations. It said “overcharge,” not “reset.” They have been tireless in raising questions about the deadly attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

While Republicans are likely to make her part of a broad critique of the Obama administration’s approach to national security, Mrs. Clinton’s hawkish views could also be a problem in ensuring the support of liberals in her own party, who are weary of foreign entanglements.

In one sense, though, the cascade of foreign crises that now bedevil Mr. Obama could play to Mrs. Clinton’s advantage. By presenting herself in her book and in any possible campaign as the toughest voice in the room during the great debates over war and peace, she could set herself apart from a president who critics charge has forsworn America’s leadership role in the world.hillary-russian-reset-button

Mrs. Clinton has scrupulously avoided publicly criticizing Mr. Obama; White House aides said he still called her for advice. And much of the administration’s foreign policy still bears her imprint, like the Iran sanctions and a more confrontational stance toward China, which she pioneered and Mr. Obama has embraced.

But in recent interviews, two dozen current and former administration officials, foreign diplomats, friends and outside analysts described Mrs. Clinton as almost always the advocate of the most aggressive actions considered by Mr. Obama’s national security team — and not just in well-documented cases, like the debate over how many additional American troops to send to Afghanistan or the NATO airstrikes in Libya.

Mrs. Clinton’s advocates — a swelling number in Washington, where people are already looking to the next administration — are quick to cite other cases in which she took more hawkish positions than the White House: arguing for funneling weapons to Syrian rebels and for leaving more troops behind in postwar Iraq, and criticizing the results of a 2011 parliamentary election in Russia.

The criticism of the Russian election led Mr. Putin to accuse her of fomenting unrest, and left some senior Obama aides unhappy. “Some at the White House thought she overstepped,” said Michael A. McFaul, a former ambassador to Russia, who supported her view.

At the same time, Mrs. Clinton’s instincts were curbed by her innate caution, her determination to show loyalty to a rival-turned-boss and her growing pains in the job. Still, dissecting her record yields tantalizing clues about what kind of foreign policy she might pursue as president. “Hillary unbound,” people who worked with her say, would be instinctively less reluctant than Mr. Obama to commit the military to foreign conflicts.

“It’s not that she’s quick to use force, but her basic instincts are governed more by the uses of hard power,” said Dennis B. Ross, a former White House aide who played a behind-the-scenes role in opening secret direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program.

Leon E. Panetta, who forged close ties to Mrs. Clinton as defense secretary and C.I.A. director, said she was a stalwart supporter of the C.I.A.’s activities in Pakistan — read, drone strikes — and an influential voice in advising Mr. Obama to order the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

“The president has made some tough decisions,” Mr. Panetta said. “But it’s been a mixed record, and the concern is, the president defining what America’s role in the world is in the 21st century hasn’t happened.”

“Hopefully, he’ll do it,” Mr. Panetta said, “and certainly, she would.”

The Mideast Peace Process

Mrs. Clinton’s hawkish inclinations were well established in her bitter 2008 Democratic primary campaign against Mr. Obama, when she famously criticized as naïve his willingness to talk to America’s adversaries without preconditions. But when he persuaded her to join his “team of rivals,” she submerged her views and worked hard to establish her loyalty — all of which has added to her problems in promoting her record.

hillary_obama_glare_reutersA case in point is the Middle East peace process, in which secretaries of state from Henry A. Kissinger to John Kerry have tried to make their mark. “There’s core-course curriculum, and then there’s extra credit,” said Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff. “This is always seen as a core requirement for a secretary of state.”

Mrs. Clinton’s marching orders from the White House were to demand that Israel cease the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank as a way to lure the Palestinians into talks, and she did so with a fervor that surprised Mr. Obama’s advisers. But they had conceived the strategy, and Mrs. Clinton privately had qualms with it, which proved well founded.

“We did not make it sufficiently clear that this was not a precondition but part of an effort to create an overall atmosphere in which negotiations could succeed,” said George J. Mitchell, the former Middle East envoy who left in 2011 after failing to break the logjam.

Mr. Kerry has tried a different approach to peacemaking, with little to show for it so far. But he seems determined to keep trying, while some veterans of Middle East diplomacy say Mrs. Clinton gave up too easily. In a recent interview with Time magazine, former President Jimmy Carter said that “she took very little action to bring about peace.”

Today, when Mrs. Clinton’s aides talk about the Middle East, they barely mention the Israeli-Palestinian talks, preferring to discuss the cease-fire she brokered in November 2012 between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, where she twisted arms to avoid escalating violence.

Building Pressure on Iran

Mrs. Clinton was more successful in dealing with Iran. As with the Middle East, she was skeptical that Mr. Obama’s initial strategy — reaching out to Iran’s leaders — would work. So when he shifted to sanctions, she was eager to build pressure on what she called a “military dictatorship.”

It was a tough job against long odds, said Tom Donilon, the former national security adviser, because it meant pressing allies in Europe and Asia, huge trading partners of Iran, to agree to steps “that had a real cost.”

Mrs. Clinton delivered her stern message with a smile. In June 2010, the day before the United Nations voted on strict new sanctions against Iran, Mrs. Clinton invited China’s ambassador to Washington, Zhang Yesui, to a hotel bar in Lima, Peru, where both were at a conference.AP_hillary-yang_6Sept12

Drinking pisco sours, the potent local cocktail, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Zhang went over an annex to the Security Council resolution line by line as she tried to clinch Beijing’s agreement to withdraw investments in Iran by Chinese banks and state-owned enterprises.

The sanctions, Mrs. Clinton likes to remind audiences, crippled Iran’s oil exports and currency, setting the stage for the election of Hassan Rouhani, a relative moderate, as president and for Iran’s renewed interest in diplomacy.

Mr. Obama had first proposed direct talks in a letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in 2009. Mrs. Clinton authorized Mr. Ross, then her special adviser, to explore a back channel to the Iranians through the Arab sultanate of Oman.

In January 2011, Mrs. Clinton stopped in Oman on a tour of the Persian Gulf that was notable because she gave a speech, on the eve of the Arab Spring, warning leaders that they risked “sinking in the sand” if they did not reform their societies. Less noticed was her meeting with the sultan, in which he offered to facilitate a meeting with the Iranians.

After some exploratory meetings with a delegation from Tehran, Mrs. Clinton sent two of her top lieutenants, William J. Burns and Jake Sullivan, to Oman for more intensive negotiations. That opened the door to the nuclear talks now underway in Vienna. But what her colleagues remember most is her steadfast conviction that Iran would deal only under duress.

“She was skeptical that it would produce anything, or at least anything quickly, and in a way she was right because it took several years to get to that point,” said Mr. Burns, a deputy secretary of state.

With China, too, Mrs. Clinton set the stage for a more confrontational approach, though that was not the policy she followed at the outset. When she made her first trip as secretary of state to Beijing, she stumbled by suggesting that the United States would not offer lectures on human rights as much as it had in the past.

By 2010, however, she sounded more like the woman who had cut her teeth on the global stage in 1995 with a defiant speech on women’s rights at a United Nations conference in Beijing. Attending a summit meeting in Vietnam, she thrust the United States into a tangled dispute between China and its neighbors over the South China Sea.

The Chinese government was enraged by her meddling, but her actions set a new context for the relationship. By insisting that China adhere to international norms and by shoring up American alliances with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, Mrs. Clinton moved Washington away from the China-centric model favored by previous presidents.

“Secretary Clinton strongly pushed for a 21st-century conversation with China and resisted occasional Chinese efforts to engage in a secretive, 19th-century diplomacy,” said Kurt M. Campbell, a former assistant secretary of state for East Asian affairs.

When the State Department proposed sending 2,500 Marines to Australia to underline America’s commitment to Southeast Asia, the Pentagon, Mr. Panetta said, latched on to the idea, because “it fit the new defense strategy we were developing.”

Mrs. Clinton became the most visible and energetic exponent of the president’s “Asia rebalance” — so much so, in fact, that her aides complained to Mr. Donilon at one point that she was not getting enough credit for it. In a lingering sign of Mrs. Clinton’s influence, Mr. Obama will visit the Philippines, Malaysia, Japan and South Korea next week.

Kim Beazley, Australia’s ambassador to Washington, credits her with reversing a laissez-faire approach to the Pacific Rim that dated from the Nixon administration. “She was metronome perfect,” he said.

A Different Standard

As Mrs. Clinton’s aides shape her legacy, one of their biggest frustrations has been explaining that the most publicized work of her tenure — her emphasis on the rights of women and girls — was not a safe or soft issue, but part of a broader strategy that strengthens national security. Mrs. Clinton may be the only diplomat, they say, who is criticized for being simultaneously too dovish and too hawkish.

“You can’t have it both ways,” said Thomas R. Nides, a former deputy secretary of state who is now a vice chairman at Morgan Stanley. “You can’t say that she’s about soft power, women and girls, and hospitals and ribbon cuttings, and simultaneously maintain that all she cares about is drones, missiles, going to war.”

Because of her celebrity and her potential political future, Mrs. Clinton’s advocates say, she is held to a different standard than other secretaries of state. More than ever, they say, the job is defined not by clear victories but by a dogged commitment to the process.

“We have sort of a heroic vision of diplomacy,” said James B. Steinberg, who served as deputy secretary of state. “But it’s really easy to overwrite the traditional role of leader-to-leader diplomacy.”Hillary-Clinton-2016

Anne-Marie Slaughter, a former director of policy planning at the State Department, said, “I think of her as being extraordinarily resourceful within a set of constraints.” She noted, for example, that Mrs. Clinton had to spend three months apologizing for the undiplomatic remarks in the secret cables disclosed by WikiLeaks.

Mrs. Clinton’s memoir will allow her to give her view of WikiLeaks, Benghazi and smaller missteps like the Russia reset button — a stunt she nevertheless liked enough that she later gave one to Mr. McDonough to smooth over friction with the White House over personnel issues.

Mrs. Clinton’s vision of 21st-century diplomacy mirrors what her allies say is a vision of a more engaged America. The question is whether that vision will be appealing to a nation that, after 12 years of war, is weary of foreign adventures. Liberal critics may have no other choice for a candidate.

“Although there will be a good number of folks in the Democratic Party who are uncomfortable with her hawkishness, they will ask themselves, ‘Where else can we go?’ ” said Paul R. Pillar, a former C.I.A. analyst who now teaches at Georgetown University and supports Mr. Obama’s more cautious view of the American role abroad.

Mr. McDonough, one of Mr. Obama’s closest foreign policy advisers, declares himself a great admirer of Mrs. Clinton. But he was on the other side of the internal debate over providing weapons to the Syrian rebels, and, like his boss, is cautious about the use of American force. However harrowing the conflict, he said, “you have to be disciplined about where you invest this country’s power.”

“We’re leaving an era where the country gave the president a lot of leeway, in terms of resources, in terms of time,” Mr. McDonough said. “It will be a long time before a president has the kind of leeway in this space that President Bush had.”

"The Unvetted" – Must see video by special permission

Editor’s Note – Yet another Obama vetting movie is out, following “2016” and released at the same time as “The Hope And The Change” movie that chronicles Obama supporters who have lost the “hope”. Its called “The Unvetted”, and you can view it in its entirety here.

“2016” is a very real box office success and “The Hope and the Change” is also posted on our home page. Please spread the word so the electorate can finally understand who Obama really is, and vote accordingly.

With special permission from Mr. Kincaid – watch the video below, here at SUA:

New Film “The Unvetted” Exposes Obama’s Communist Cover-up

Right Side News

A new film from America’s Survival, Inc. documents what journalist Cliff Kincaid calls “one of the most extraordinary cover-ups in American history –how a presidential candidate with a covert connection to a major Communist Party operative was protected by the major liberal and conservative media.”

Kincaid is the president of America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) and recently held a Washington, D.C. conference on “The Vetting” of Barack Obama. The 30 minute film The Unvetted is available for viewing for free at the ASI YouTube channel.

“Four years after we broke the story wide open with the release of a 600-page FBI file on Barack Obama’s communist mentor, we are still finding major elements of the media with their heads in the sand,” Kincaid said, in announcing the official release of the new film. Kincaid is a veteran Washington journalist with more than 30 years of experience.

The film is produced in cooperation with AB INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS, headed by Agustin Blazquez, producer/director of many documentaries, including “Che: The Other Side of an Icon.” The “Che” documentary, which told the truth about Castro’s communist revolution, was rejected for funding and airing by public television.

Watch the video here:

Working with blogger Trevor Loudon, Kincaid describes in the film how they uncovered the fact that Obama had concealed the identity of Frank Marshall Davis in his memoir Dreams from My Father, calling him just “Frank” and depicting him as a poet and writer.

“Obama knew that Frank Marshall Davis was an associate and mentor and that he had to protect his communist identity from public scrutiny,” Kincaid points out.

The film includes an interview with Kincaid and some of the original source material used to document Obama’s relationship with Davis.

“We expected silence and ridicule from the liberal media when we exposed Obama’s ‘Frank’ as Communist Frank Marshall Davis,” Kincaid said. “But the Drudge Report would not run my ads on Frank Marshall Davis during the fall of 2008. Fox News did not cover our news conference in May of 2008 revealing the communist identity of ‘Frank’ from Obama’s book.”

Kincaid went on, “The conservative media must stop protecting Obama from the scrutiny he deserves. Our film ‘The Unvetted’ explains this scandal and cover-up. Our sincere thanks to Right Side News for telling the story that has to be told. Right Side News is a news source that you can trust. They deserve your support as we go forward exposing this most deadly and dangerous of cover-ups.”

Videos and documents from Kincaid’s conference on “The Vetting” of Obama can be found at the website www.LeninandSharia.com The conference featured speeches by, among others, Trevor Loudon; filmmaker Joel Gilbert, director of a new film on the possibility that Davis was Obama’s real father; Paul Kengor, author of a new book on Davis entitled The Communist; and former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky, who gave a report on Soviet/Russian cooperation with Arab and Islamic terrorist groups and states.

SUA interview with "2016" Producer, Jerry Molen

Interview with Jerry Molen, producer of “2016”

Premiering in Houston, July 13, 2012, Full, nationwide release on July 27, 2012 – Official Website

By Scott W. Winchell, Editor-in-Chief, Stand Up America

Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen, Oscar-winning Hollywood co-producer for “Shindler’s List” and producer of a host of other great films such as: “Jurassic Park” and, “The Lost World: Jurassic Park”, “Twister”, “Minority Report”, “Hook”, and “Rain Man”, to name a few, is now producing a film with a much different aim. This new project is not for entertainment, but rather, for education. Educating America about who Obama really is.

This new project is a documentary entitled “2016”. It is based on the book from noted writer, Dinesh D’Souza entitled: “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” with additional input from a new book coming out in August titled, appropriately, “Obama’s America”. The film is due for release on July 27th and distribution will be wide; you will be able to see it in your local theaters. The project was co-written and co-directed by Dinesh D’Souza and John Sullivan.

The interview:

I met Jerry and his wife Pat many years ago, through MG Paul Vallely, founder of Stand Up America (SUA). Over the years, we have enjoyed many good times together over meals, on a cruise with family, and we have had many discussions regarding the status of America and its decline from what the founding fathers originally intended. This is something of major concern to Jerry and we here at SUA. When I heard of this new project, I knew we had to ‘talk’ once again.

My first question to Jerry was, “why”? “Why venture into the political sphere, especially during this campaign season?” He said: “I am not looking for another payday, just about doing what is best for America.”

Jerry went on: “Obama has placed a very heavy burden on our kids. These types only think of themselves and are not concerned with how it affects others despite what they say.”

“There are very real questions about this man, and it does not add up,” he continued. “There are very real concerns about what he really stands for, what he may do if he were re-elected.”

I asked why the project was entitled “2016”? He responded quickly, and with some verve: “We see dangers ahead, and we wonder what America will look like in 2016 if he does get to fulfill his agenda. There are signs that his goals are not what is in the best interest of Americans – it’s something far different.”

Jerry described how they were approaching the movie, slated to be documentary length at about an hour and a half, “Dinesh D’Souza’s book’s are its basis. Dinesh traveled the world, documenting everything…filmed on actual locations. It’s about facts…no conjecture…no spin…no pre-conceived notions…just about the truth.”

I then asked about the process, and how he approaches his duties as producer. He said: “Like all my movies, it’s my job to create the environment, provide the tools, to allow the director and his team to be creative. They have a totally free hand in creativity. That is how to tell the story.” He added, “Then we go to editing, find out what worked and what didn’t, what is missing, how can we make sure the whole story is true to fact, and facts tell the story for us.”

Timing was the next question, to which I asked: “You are aware that Obama and his supporters will be in attack mode, and that the timing will be questioned.” He responded: “Of course it’s about the election – that is the point – America needs to see who Obama really is, and that is what “2016” is all about. We have to show the country, from his own writings, words, and deeds, who he really is.”

“People in America have very real fears, they are scared, and it’s not just the Republicans, or the conservatives – it also includes ‘Reagan Democrats’, independents, and even many main-stream Democrats,” he declared.

Jerry talked about Obama’s ‘anti-colonial’ roots, the roots of his father, and the dreams of his father. Jerry continued: “He is changing everything, and he is not wrapping his arms around the constitution as he does. He is changing things from the perspective that America is at fault.” He followed that up by describing something he abhors, being called the “Ugly American.” Continuing: “Obama has shown that he subscribes to that idea through his writings and words, and that his roots and ideas are more like non-Americans – that we are imperialists.”

Jerry described how wrong that is by quoting Colin Powell who responded to the question of empire building by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2003: “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

Jerry added: “He is so bent on changing everything, and people are bending to his will. They even changed the first game of the NFL season to accommodate his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention.” He continued: “DVD’s of the movie will be released between the party conventions. Americans have to see who he really is.”

He closed by telling me of the top three dangers of a second term for Obama:

  1. His direct assault on the Constitution by end-running Congress whenever he doesn’t get his way. It is not an Imperial Presidency.
  2. The vast number of Executive Orders used to put his progressive agenda into practice
  3. The lack of transparency. Another broken promise where transparency has given way to secrecy and behind closed door dealings that get revealed to the people AFTER the fact.

In closing, he reiterated: “…this is not about muck-raking, it’s a factual documentary, and we are going to show, in a very high quality format, created by some the finest professionals in the business, what and who Obama really is.”

Official Website

Official Trailer:

Oscar winning Producer – Vetting Obama, the movie…

Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen Producing Dinesh D’Souza Book into a movie: “2016”

Big Hollywood

Director Steven Spielberg, who donated more than $87,000 to the Democratic Party in the last election cycle, has a co-producer who feels a little differently than he does about President Barack Obama.

Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen - Oscar winning producer

Meet Gerald R. Molen: Spielberg’s co-producer on Hollywood blockbusters such as “Schindler’s List,” “Jurassic Park” and “Minority Report.” Molen is the driving force behind “2016,” a documentary — based on “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” a book written by Dinesh D’Souza — about President Obama scheduled to hit theaters this summer.

Molen promises, that like D’Souza’s book, the film will take viewers deep into the heart and mind of our president, a leader he contends is unique in the course of our nation’s history because of his far-left radical views.

The film’s trailer debuted at CPAC 2012 earlier this year and was followed by a moving speech by D’Souza himself. The film’s, as explained by D’Souza, is simple: Obama is not a traditional Democrat like Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis. Nor is Obama akin to left-wing liberals such as John Kerry or Jimmy Carter.

Traditional liberals, D’Souza explained, only want to redistribute wealth within America. Obama, he says, wants to redistribute America’s power among smaller nations throughout the world.

Why? D’Souza explained that Obama is literally trying to fulfill the title of his book, “Dreams from My Father.” Obama’s father, who was Kenyan, viewed the world from an anti-Colonial perspective. Molen says Obama now wants to use his power as the American president to rid the world of colonialism … starting with downsizing the very power of the U.S.A.

D’Souza explained the premise further:

What is this anti-colonialism? It is, in fact, the most powerful ideology in Asia, in Africa, in South America, in the past 100 years. If you want to know why there’s anti-Americanism around the world, it’s not just because of Islamic radicalism – that would help to explain it in the Middle East. It’s anti-colonialism.

The anti-colonial ideology very simply says that the world is divided into the oppressors and the oppressed. There is the West, now led by America. Then there are the poor people led by Asia, Africa, and South America. The anti-colonial ideology is that the rich countries got rich by invading, occupying, and looting the poor countries. The ideology says that to fight against all of this, you have to put a leash on the rogue elephant that is America. It also says that there are concentrations of economic power: The banks, the insurance companies, the oil companies – this is the economic wing of colonialism. And what you have to do to fight this is to use the power of the state to control it.

Molen named his film “2016” because he’s attempting to demonstrate what America and the world could look like if Obama is re-elected. And that, Molen and D’Souza believe, would be a dangerous thing for those who want to preserve the American dream.

D’Souza told the crowd that Obama’s second term would mean the president “won’t be tethered to public opinion, he won’t have to run for re-election again, he will be truly, in a sense, a free man in the White House to do what he wants.”

Molen’s “2016” is scheduled to be released nationwide this summer.

Oscar winning producer, Jerry Molen – Slams Obama, Lauds Breitbart

Editor’s Note– Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen is a founding member of Stand Up America and is a close friend who advises SUA staff regularly. He is currently producing a movie to be released this summer about Barack Obama called: “2016”.

He is also an Oscar-winning film producer whose credits include “Rain Man,” “Minority Report,” “Twister,” “Schindler’s List” and “Jurassic Park.”

Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen - Oscar winning producer; SUA co-founding member.

Look for the upcoming SUA interview with Jerry and Dinesh D’Sousa to be posted soon. Get ready, Jerry and Dinesh are about to stun the world again.

Originally published at Breitbart.com

_____________________

By Gerald R. (Jerry) Molen

My fellow patriots,

As we sit in our comfort-laden abodes, sipping our lattes or pink lemonades and either wishing the snow would be gone for another year or baseball season would start so there was something interesting to do, the world continues to move forward. But as we seek other interests, we are not listening to the sounds emanating from the world around us. If you would listen carefully you would recognize the woeful sounds of America gasping for its very breath of life and its inner soul.

Yes, the sounds are there. We just don’t listen. We only hear (or see) what we want. As the country gasps for clarity of purpose, we the people figure someone or something else will come along and fix the problems for us. I don’t think so. The warning signs have been there for a long time. A very long time. It is my humble opinion that, during these turbulent times, we find ourselves in the dilemma of our lifetimes. As a country we have been either asleep or just too comfortable in our own cocoons to realize the depth of our plight.

An event took place in 2008 that changed the world we live in. It changed the face of America, it changed the direction of our moral values, it changed how we view the future and how we see ourselves as human beings and it changed the make up of our basic freedoms that we so irreverently tossed aside for entitlement freebies and empty promises by the engineers at the helm.

Thus, I have some questions; As we sit at the precipice of financial collapse from debt and entitlements, how much time do we have? Can we reverse course? What can we as individuals do? Who best to bring us back from the brink? Or are we too late?

The latter question first … are we too late? No. Not really. That is the one thing we do as Americans … once awakened from a slumber and the realization sinks in that we are in a pot of dirty soup up to our noses and some bunch of dirt bags are throwing in more slop to hopefully drown us in our own spittle, we fight. We fight hard and will win in the end because we always have.

It’s in our DNA. The sad part is we have to get to the point of losing everything before we stand tall and state unequivocally, “No more. Stop the madness. Stop it now!”

The event I speak of, of course, was the presidential election of 2008. We put a man in office, a man not really qualified to be a dog catcher, much less the most powerful man in the world. We refused to listen to what he was saying. We missed the first gasp of incredulity when he promised to transform America. Oh, we bought into the cliched slogans of “hope and change.” We liked his smile, his ability to read from a teleprompter, his super-friendly demeanor and his charismatic oratorical skills. Yeah, we jumped in with both feet thinking the country would show the world we had found our mojo and racism was gone forever.

Once again, our ears failed us. Our eyes failed us. We failed to hear that horrific sucking sound of our falling into the vortex of calm voices pushing us ever so gently but with assured and deft platitudes, into the hell of our own making.

We found that the dreaded four-letter word that could burn the eardrums of a sweet mother or even a hard-hearted father did not start with the letter ‘F.’ No, no … that would have been too simple. There are worse four-letter words that not only burn the eardrums but they singe the soul. They change life as we know it. They create an environment of hell on earth. And alas, sometimes they come wrapped in the promises of easy living, free lunches forever and fun times at the social picnic. But as the wrappings are peeled away and truth is revealed, and we see the four-letter words that imprison us with our own trappings. They become clear and defined. They are “fear and envy” and the worst four letter word of all, “hate.”

Hate fuels the fear, the envy, and we bind ourselves to the adversary by falling into the trap of each of them. We can never lose our awareness that those who perpetrate the lie and the hate by using their best tools of fear and envy and class warfare are alive and well and doing their very best to take our basic freedoms away from us. The word and its implications need to get lost from the lexicon of the American landscape. I realize that will be hard for the Left in America as it is what feeds their motivations and goals.

Another part of the ongoing dilemma is that the President surrounded himself with self-proclaimed Marxists, socialists, communists and progressives. Why? Is the answer that he embodies some or all of those ideological characteristics? I think so. Each of them arrived with an agenda to turn America into the vision of themselves and the despicable goal of changing America into a European style state of fear and class warfare. Sadly, we see it happening before our very eyes, but we refuse to stand up and make our presence and our voices known. That must change. We have to get involved. If we sit still for the usual emanations from Washington, D.C. and say nothing, do nothing, we will be nothing. Who to blame? Only ourselves.

Now we are confronted with the possibility of changing the mistake the country made in putting Obama in the highest office in the land by electing a new POTUS. But will we? Will the majority fall on their faces while groveling at the feet of the feed-lot proprietor? Will our defenses be pushed aside by the desire to partake of the entitlements the proprietor doles out as temporary freebies and the empty promises of a better life if only we will give our souls and our minds to this false benefactor? Or will we stand up to the forces of promises of easy living and more and more entitlements? It won’t be easy, but it is necessary, or we won’t live in the America we grew up in.

The election of 2008 was filled with the same promises we are hearing again as the President travels across the country extolling his virtues and penchant for handing out goodies wrapped in the same old hope and change. The empty promises were countless, but we Americans have a habit of short memories. How many of you remember the promises of transparency, the tremendous number of czars, the idea of having our military pay for their own insurance, etc?

We need to reawaken our memories. Give them a jolt. Then each of us should care enough to get off our butts and do something about the crisis we find ourselves in. When we do not, we condemn our progeny to a lifetime of debt and potential servitude to the miseries of progressive lifestyles and socialist living conditions. The era of personal responsibility will be gone forever and the future we leave to the next generations will fall on our inability to shoulder the reasoning of our forefathers and the burdens of freedom. Yes, there is a price to pay for the greatness of America. Are we and will we stand up to the task and be willing to carry our portion of that burden? It is my fervent and continued prayer that we will find the resolve, the strength, the willingness and the love of country enough to make a difference.

By the way …

Last month, the conservative side of politics lost a champion of truth and a strong voice in the conservative movement with the passing of Andrew Breitbart. He was a man of high intellect, vision and courage. He never backed away from a fight and was responsible for turning out those who sought to endear themselves at the public trough via their egregious actions and poor moral values. He disclosed them and brought them to the bar of justice for the American people to see and judge for themselves. He was a great example for all of us to aspire to. We cannot allow his passing to be just a closing of another chapter in the fortunes of America. We must carry his part of the burden he was so willing to share for all of us.

In freedom and in purpose, I am

Jerry Molen