The man was convicted of such a petty amount of overpayment that he is the only man ever brought to trial for it. His sentence was beyond the pail. He was a political prisoner. He pissed off the Piece Of Totally Useless Shit in the White House. Obama has commuted so many felonies and treason since 2006. Yet not one word against him. Hillary gets pass also. So it seems you only take issue with hard working naturalized citizens. Or maybe you despise Indians. So how about it are you a bigot and racist Slatten.

The man was convicted of such a petty amount of overpayment that he is the only man ever brought to trial for it. His sentence was beyond the pail. He was a political prisoner. He pissed off the Piece Of Totally Useless Shit in the White House. Obama has commuted so many felonies and treason since 2006. Yet not one word against him. Hillary gets pass also. So it seems you only take issue with hard working naturalized citizens. Or maybe you despise Indians. So how about it are you a bigot and racist Slatten.

Be careful what you ask for, Randy 131.

A review of HILLARY'S AMERICA: THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Peter Sobczynski; July 15, 2016

Just over a year ago, not long after being released from the confinement center where he spent an eight-month sentence, author, filmmaker and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza took to Twitter to offer up his followers a photograph that purported to show a young Hillary Clinton with a Confederate flag prominently displayed behind her. Even a glaucoma victim could tell that it was a fake—a doctored version of a photo of her as a student as Wellesley in 1969 that ran in Life magazine—but somehow this managed to get by him. When he did eventually post a vague correction, he instead advised his followers to make fun of her glasses and hairdo, neither of which appear to be especially outrageous for a Wellesley student in the late ‘60s. Now imagine that photograph—dubiously sourced, factually questionable and suffused with nasty personal cracks instead of any legitimate insight or criticism—and you have D’Souza’s latest film, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” a work that almost makes his previous cinematic efforts, “2016: Obama’s America” and “America” seem lucid and well-reasoned by comparison. Little more than an extended version of the kind of political screeds that can be found online with only a minimum of effort, this is just a terrible movie, and, depending on the conditions that were set forth, there is a chance it could be considered a parole violation as well.

If you think I'm being gratuitously mean (or giving up a spoiler) by referring to D’Souza as a convicted felon, then you should know that the movie actually opens with him being sentenced to eight months in a halfway house, community service and a $30,000 fine for committing a campaign-finance violation involving getting straw donors to contribute to the campaign of a friend running for the U.S. Senate. According to the film, D’Souza is really being convicted for the crime of having made a movie that dared to expose Obama as a lying, cheating monster hellbent on destroying America. While in the stir—in which he seems to be the only one not convicted of a violent crime—he asks around about the big gangs and how they consolidate their power. After getting a primer from fellow inmate Roc, it dawns on him that what he is hearing is oddly familiar. “What if the goal of the Democratic Party is to steal the most valuable thing this world ever produced?” You know, America!

After finally departing the confinement center, D’Souza knows what he has to do. This requires studying up on the Democratic Party—something that evidently never occurred to him before when he made films about it—and takes him to “Democratic Headquarters,” a recreated location that appears to have had its production design supervised by Tommy Wiseau and which contains a secret basement in which all of their dirty secrets are kept from public view. As it turns out, the Republicans were remarkably forward-thinking in all ways imaginable in regards to things like opposing slavery and the KKK while those Democrats were busy seizing Indian lands, enslaving blacks and taking advantage of women. We learn of the monstrous policies of such infamous Democrats as Woodrow Wilson (who screened “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House) and Lyndon Johnson (whose only interest in passing the Voting Rights Act was to appease Negroes who “are pretty uppity” and to ensure their party loyalty for the next 200 years). At this point, you may be thinking “Hey, didn’t the political parties originally known as the Democrats and Republicans change and evolve over time to the point where the once-conservative Democrats became Republicans and the more progressive Republicans became Democrats?” Not so fast, according to D'Souza—he assures us that nothing of the sort happened and the only reason that Southern Democrats became Republican after the Voting Rights Act was because the South became more prosperous and less racist because of Republican policies. (This factoid is accompanied by a picture of Ronald Reagan, so you know it is true).

The film also takes time to hit a couple of favorite non-elected targets of the conservative movement. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is presented as a character straight out of a horror film, and much is made of a lecture that she gave to a gathering of female KKK members. Of course, the film doesn’t mention that Sanger at the time basically spoke to anyone who would listen regarding birth control (she later described the talk as “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lectures”), or how she was praised in later years by none other than Martin Luther King Jr. Then there is Saul Alinsky, who is portrayed as a criminal monster who worked his way up from scamming cheap meals as a starving student to practically becoming the right-hand man to gangster Frank Nitti, eventually taking the lessons he learned there to organizing liberal types in order to seize power for the socialist agenda by pushing from the outside. Eventually, one of his protégés outdoes him by remarking that if they can somehow take over the government, “Then we can push from the inside.”

That protégé is none other than Hillary Clinton, and after sneaking into the basement of a Clinton recruitment center, D’Souza learns the shocking truth about her as well. By “shocking truth,” of course, the information amounts to “largely discredited crap your uncle sent you on Facebook.” The tenor of this segment is set with D’Souza asking “Is Hillary really capable of enabling a rapist?” and it goes downhill from there as we get another rehash of husband Bill’s infidelities (there are many shots of a woman in a sexy black dress slinking out of various places), Hillary ranting through the halls of the White House, a recounting of that uranium scandal that turned out to be much ado about nothing and the possible depravations of the Clinton Foundation. As for Benghazi, he supposes that she refused to send in help because “she couldn’t figure out how to make a buck off of them.” As this segment ends, D’Souza denounces them for their “hateful rhetoric” before calling them “depraved crooks” who will “turn all of America into a plantation” if she is elected president. At no time, however, does he make any sort of case for an alternative to her in this election cycle. Even though the film is up-to-date enough to include a moment suggesting that Obama was responsible for the massacre in Orlando, there is, at most, one brief and vague reference to Donald Trump.

All of this is conveyed by D’Souza in the most cinematically inept ways imaginable. The film is less a coherent narrative than a compendium of slanders, innuendos, cherry-picked facts, blatant omissions, stuff taken almost directly from his earlier documentaries, terrible historical reenactments, a couple of interviews that convey additional information of a highly dubious manner and ironic clips from movies that you will wish that you had watched instead of this one (including “Metropolis” and “Evita"). From a filmmaking perspective, the whole thing is so amateurishly done that even those who fall close to D’Souza on the political spectrum should feel ripped off. Worst of all, it utterly fails at its mission of being the ultimate Hillary Clinton takedown by never laying a single glove on her. This is especially astounding, as even those inclined to support her could probably name a couple of things she has done in her years in the spotlight that are legitimately questionable—her vote for the war in Iraq and her embrace of the teachings of Henry Kissinger to name a couple—but instead of exploring those, D’Souza is more concerned with calling Bill Clinton a sex abuser but blaming it all on Hillary.

“Hillary’s America” may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life—nearly two hours of poisonous bluster and anti-historical rhetoric that comes across like the desperate ravings of someone trying to make a few more bucks by rehashing the same nonsense before his gravy train finally leaves town. The closest thing I can compare it to are the strange and highly speculative documentaries that Sunn Classics used to crank out in the late Seventies—movies that breathlessly promised viewers that they would reveal the existence of life after death or the Bermuda Triangle or Noah’s Ark but only gave people clumsy reenactments, interviews with highly dubious experts and wild speculation without ever actually offering any of the concrete proof that they promised. Those films used to get huge audiences, but once viewers caught on to the con, interest dropped sharply. And if the drop in interest between D’Souza’s first two films is any indication (“2016” was a sizable hit but “America” came and went so quickly that he never makes reference to it once here), there is an excellent chance this film will face the same fate. The only intelligent thought the film has to offer comes at the very end when D’Souza admonishes people to go out and vote. Okay, he can’t, but the thought is still nice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since I had never planned to vote for Hillary anyway, this movie couldn't change my mind. It certainly won't make me vote for The Donald. My vote will remain an independent protest vote.

This is a paid political hack review of a movie liberals do not want anyone to watch, and especially not believe, yet the person hired to discredit this movie can say nothing about all the historical facts that the movie informs it's viewers of, because they are all true, and if they were not, Hillary and the others mention could sue for defamation of character, but since all the facts are true, no lawsuit will be filed by anyone. As far as D'Souza being a felon, one should ask why all the Democrats who were charged with much more egregious campaign-finance law crimes got off scot-free, or with a slap on the risk, while D'Souza got the book thrown at him for getting just 'ONE' of his friends to donate to another of his friends' campaign, and D'Souza reimbursed him for what he had donated, and D'Souza also got much more than this review claims he got, for five years each week he has to go through a psychological analysis, or indoctrination to accept the liberal and progressive views, instead of his patriotic conservative Christian views, along with the community service he must provide every week also. Show me just one campaign finance criminal that has had to go through all this. Show me one that has had a harsher punishment than D'Souza has gone through, then you can decide if he has been punished for that one friend being reimbursed for donating to a friends campaign, compared to what the Democrat John Edwards, former Democratic Vice-President candidate with John Kerry's campaign for President, did in his campaign-finance criminal charges, for he also got off scot-free, just like the FBI let Hillary Clinton off scot-free concerning her supreme carelessness in handling classified federal government documents and information. Also as far as the movie being "the single dumbest documentary" that this hack of a reviewer has ever seen, like I said, at the end of the show that I went to see, nobody got out of their seats, but sat their and clapped for about 5 minutes before everyone started exiting, and when asking all the ushers that come in after the movie is over to clean the room for the next show, when I asked them, they all said each showing of the movie receives the same type of gratitude after it is over. Now I live in Florida, not California, New York City, or Chicago, bastions of liberalism that don't care how immoral their politicians are, only that they win so they can force their beliefs on the rest of us, because some say Florida Is a Blue State, while others claim it is a Red State, and some say it is a Purple State, but whichever it turns out to be, the responses by the people in Florida over this movie have all been the same, very, very good. So don't listen to a paid hack that pans a great movie for his own political reasons, go to see it and judge for yourself if it is good or not, and try to find anyone who can prove any of the facts given in this movie, many by black people, that are not the truth. Like I said in my first comment, many will believe this a great and historically informative movie, while others will hate it because it exposes the truth about them and their political arty and their cultural beliefs, that are really un-American, as the hack reviewer who wrote this panning of the movie, see for yourself who is correct, me or him, I can tell you one thing, just for the historical value you won't be sorry that you went to see this movie, because it exposes so many truths that the media tries to keep hidden from the American people, for they can easily obfuscate an ignorant voter to vote the way they want them to vote, but not a well informed voter that wants to vote for what is true and good.?

Well then, sir, try this review from a conservative writer for a conservative publication, The American Thinker. Like it better? Please explain all of the convenient omissions and historical inaccuracies found in the movie by him.

Hillary's America: How Accurate Is the History? Written by Steve Byas for The American Thinker

Hillary’s America --- The Secret History of the Democratic Party is the third installment of Dinesh D’Souza’s politically oriented movies. While D’Souza’s latest cinematic enterprise contains much that is very good, including the making of the connection of both President Barack Obama and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to radical leftist Saul Alinsky, and their own radical backgrounds, some parts of the movie take great liberties with historical fact.

I suspect that D’Souza, who spent eight months in prison as a result of a clearly politically inspired prosecution because of his 2012 movie documenting the leftist background of Obama, is understandably bitter. But as bad as the modern Democratic Party is, that does not excuse twisting history in an effort to make the Democratic Party totally evil and the Republican Party totally good.

Both political parties have had their moments in history that today's traditionally minded, small-government conservatives can cite as good; but sadly, with both the Democrats and the Republicans, those moments have been far too brief.

Perhaps D’Souza’s best achievement in this present movie is demonstrating the falsity of the lie that the reason the South switched from Democrat to Republican was due to racism. One of the talking-points of the Democratic Party today is that all the racists and segregationists of the southern Democratic Party moved over into the Republican Party as a result of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Southerners voted against the very liberal Senator George McGovern, the Democratic Party nominee in 1972, along with almost all of the rest of the country. Southerner Jimmy Carter temporarily checked this realignment in 1976, only to lose to Republican Ronald Reagan in the election of 1980. Considering that Reagan carried 44 states, with the help of the so-called Reagan Democrats, in the North, South, East, and West, one must ask: Did almost the entire nation switch in 1980 because of a civil rights law passed 16 years earlier?

Of course, Reagan went on to carry 49 states in 1984. The presidency of Bill Clinton in the 1990s continued this realignment, and by 2000, the switch was mostly complete.

But, whereas progressive Democrats unfairly slander conservative Republicans with the “race card,” D’Souza’s film is even more unfair, unloading the entire deck of race cards on the Democratic Party.

D’Souza’s thesis is that the Democratic Party was essentially founded by Andrew Jackson in the 1820s, and the party has been both racist and evil ever since.

In an effort to advance this thesis, every Democrat in the film is evil and every Republican is cast as heroic. And no man is more evil, at least according to D’Souza’s film, than Andrew Jackson.

While there are many negative things that can fairly be said about Andrew Jackson, D’Souza simply goes too far in his desire to make Jackson the Devil Incarnate. One can certainly disagree with Jackson’s Indian removal policy without presenting him as a hater of Native Americans. Left out of the movie was Jackson’s adoption of a Creek orphan boy, Lyncoya. He and his wife, Rachel, were unable to have children of their own, and they raised the boy at the Hermitage, and paid for his education as a saddle maker. (Jackson’s original desire was to send the boy to West Point, but the young man died in 1828 of tuberculosis.)

But perhaps the most unfair treatment of Jackson was D’Souza’s portrayal of him as forcing slave women to have sex with him. Absolutely zero evidence exists to support such a claim.

D’Souza’s version of Andrew Jackson is more like a comic book villain than reality. When James Parton wrote his three-volume Life of Andrew Jackson on the eve of the Civil War, he interviewed many individuals, still living, who remembered “Old Hickory.”

One of those interviewed was a former slave of Jackson’s named Hannah. She praised him highly, saying he “was more of a father to us than a master, and many’s the time we’ve wished him back again.” She was present in his bedroom when he died in 1845. According to Hannah, as well as several other witnesses, among his last words were, “I hope to meet you all in Heaven, both black and white.”

Other records exist that Jackson could sometimes be cruel to his slaves, but none of these accounts even hint at sexual relationships with them — forced or consensual.

Another historical distortion in the movie involved the caning of Senator Charles Sumner, an ardent abolitionist. The movie portrays Sumner speaking on the floor of the Senate against slavery, when a pro-slavery Democrat from South Carolina, Congressman Preston Brooks, came up behind him and began to strike him with a cane.

No doubt the attack was brutal and unjustifiable. But D’Souza’s version leaves out important facts. In his intemperate speech, Sumner had called for the entire state of South Carolina to be “blotted out of existence,” and had accused their senator, Andrew Butler, of forcible sexual relations with his slaves. He also made fun of Butler’s speech impediment, mocking Butler’s difficulty in speaking. Butler was not on the floor to defend himself, so Brooks crossed over from the House side and launched his savage attack upon Sumner.

Again, brutal and unjustifiable, but D’Souza’s version is altered to make the case that the entire Democratic Party was pro-slavery, in contrast to the pure and heroic Republican Party.

His treatment of Sumner illustrates how D’Souza passes over the failings of the Republican Party. Sumner later joined the First International, or “International Workingmen’s Association,” which was formed by Karl Marx and others in London in 1864. Being a member of the world communist movement is hardly heroic.

Neither political party has ever — at any time in its history — been a good example of dedication to the constitutional principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty that we would like them to be. In the last quarter of the 19th century, the Democratic Party, if anything, tended to be the more conservative of the two political parties.

The Democratic president Woodrow Wilson, elected in 1912, was justly castigated in D’Souza’s movie as a racist and a segregationist. Wilson was also a “progressive” who worked to undermine the Constitution of the United States and end American national sovereignty with the League of Nations. But, the Republican Theodore Roosevelt was very similar to Wilson — in fact, Roosevelt actually ran for president in 1912 on the “Progressive Party ticket,” a campaign in which he attacked the very idea of “private property.”

Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, both Republicans who served in the 1920s, were certainly much better than either Republican Roosevelt or Democrat Wilson, but they were followed by yet another progressive Republican, Herbert Hoover in 1929. Hoover’s meddling in the economy helped deepen the Great Depression, and even provided a model for the New Deal of Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

Certainly Republican candidates of the last several decades have tended to sound more conservative than Democrats, but their performance in office has generally not been anything to be happy about, if one is a conservative. Now, if one attends Republican grassroots meetings and Democrat grassroots meetings, there are usually stark differences that one can note. But, at the congressional level, and the presidential level, these differences become much less pronounced.

Perhaps one of the better moments in the movie was when D’Souza interviewed Jonah Goldberg, author of the book Liberal Fascism. Goldberg noted that in the 1920s, American progressives (who later took on the name liberals) heaped praise upon the system of government found in Fascist Italy, under Benito Mussolini. As Goldberg correctly said, the only progress that progressives are making is away from the Constitution and the system of government created by our Founding Fathers. He said that progressivism, liberalism, and socialism are all pretty much the same.

While a person who favors limited government and our constitutional form of government can certainly agree with D’Souza’s indictment of the modern Democratic Party, distortions of history to make that case only hurt the case in the end.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Steve Byas is a professor of history at Randall University in Moore, Oklahoma. His book 'History’s Greatest Libels' is a challenge to some of the great distortions of history.

These supposed distortions are really more of a difference of opinions, for what was said was true, but the degree of which was implied though actions could be argued either way, which only surmise to the probability of distortion, and does not prove distortion, only difference of opinion. I noticed that the speeches given by the actors were word for word of those speeches that were given in the past by the people they portrayed, and nothing was ever said about the truth that was exposed in those speeches, whatever opinion that one wants to confront the reality that was portrayed and implied in this movie. The degree of the inferred evil of the Democratic Party, and the goodness inferred of the Republican Party, cannot be denied on the subjects they were directed at, but when considering other subjects, one can easily say the pendulum swings the other way when imparting good and evil intentions of those two political parties, for nobody is totally evil, and nobody is totally good, and such are also the political parties they belong to, and degrees of each can be assigned, but I assure you the subject matter described in this movie had the correct degree of evil and good correctly assigned to each of the two political parties that the movie assigning blame and gratification at.

Not to worry, Kenjay. My wife is primarily of Cherokee blood, and both her and I love wolves, also. In fact, our home's decor includes many Indian and wolf artifacts....paintings, photos, sculptures and numerous 'dream-catchers.' You seem consistently wrong on matters, sir/ma'am.

Well, Kenjay, both my wife & I love your avatar. Assuming it is a wolf, it certainly is a healthy one. My wife's grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee, also, and wolves are her favorite animal. I look forward to reading future posts by you. Take care...both you and Wolfgang.

Am I to understand you are a single father I raised my three children as a single father for twelve years, having met my wife near the very end of my youngest child's time at home.

Not to worry, Kenjay. My wife is primarily of Cherokee blood, and both her and I love wolves, also. In fact, our home's decor includes many Indian and wolf artifacts....paintings, photos, sculptures and numerous 'dream-catchers.' You seem consistently wrong on matters, sir/ma'am.