D'Souza's Death of a Nation has provoked prog critics' outrage
Unsurprisingly, Dinesh D'Souza's film Death of a Nation has made the loud voices on the left stark raving mad. A perfect example is the film review website Rotten Tomatoes. The eleven critics gave the film a zero. The voting audience gave it 90% approval. The same is true at all the typically left-wing sites that review films.
The Hollywood Reporter reviewer, Frank Scheck, was apoplectic. He does not bother to provide any countervailing facts. He cannot. D'Souza's history is accurate. But reviewers like Scheck are so committed to the lies they have been taught in college, or maybe J-school, for forty years that they leap to histrionic attacks on the film before bothering to do any research.
The hysterical reaction to this film by the left is yet another sad commentary on the state of American education. The film is thoughtful and balanced. Unlike privileged film reviewers like Scheck, D'Souza, an immigrant from India, sees so clearly what is great about America. He is grateful that it is his country now.
Few if any American leftists ever express gratitude for being born in America. They relentlessly complain and malign this country. They have no appreciation, no gratitude for their good fortune to be American. That's what they do. That is who they are.
Numerous reviewers posted vitriolic comments and reviews before the film was even released. They had not yet seen it but felt compelled to condemn it based solely on the fact that it was D'Souza's. This is probably how most of these pseudo-journalists got through school. They wrote papers on books they never read, on subjects they never bothered to investigate, and then they graduated with honors for toeing the party line. For these people, ideology trumps everything, even the truth. They are of the "there is no objective truth" crowd. But there is and always will be a clear demarcation between the truth and lies, between good and evil, no matter how much the left tries to blur those lines.
Peter Sobeczynski, writing on Roger Ebert's site, thinks D'Souza argues that Trump is the modern-day equivalent of Lincoln. D'Souza does no such thing. He does compare the venomous opposition that both Lincoln faced and Trump faces every day since he announced his candidacy. He also suggests that Trump's pardon had something to do with the film. It did not. D'Souza did not seek the pardon. His conviction was a case of Obama's revenge for his earlier film. His crime: funneling $20K, $15K over the limit, to a friend running for office. This is an act nearly every member of Congress, the media, Hollywood celebrities, and the rest of the left commit every day without a moment's thought to the law but are never charged with a crime. It is business as usual on the left and the right.
As we surely all know by now, there are two systems of justice in America: one for everyday citizens and a sort of nonexistent version for the Beltway elites for whom most laws do not apply. Hillary Clinton committed too many crimes to list here and has been charged for none of them as yet. She used her position as secretary of state as a get-rich-quick scheme via her "foundation," a pay-to-play set-up if there ever was one.
Given the known facts, Sobeczynki's screed is over-the-top ridiculous. It betrays his fear of the truth, of facts. He believes he knows what is true, but he has been badly educated – in history, current events, and film-reviewing. The film is not "haphazard"; it earnestly tries to inform viewers. If viewers are open-minded, they will learn some truths they were never taught in school.
There are, of course, some good reviews. Randy DeSoto writes for the Western Journal. He is right when he says the film "leaves you with a sense of pride for what the United States has stood for[.]" He is exactly right. If only the American left could feel pride in America and how its success as a democratic republic has benefited the world. But they don't feel pride; they feel anger and rage. Why is a mystery to behold. They don't leave for greener pastures, for the socialist paradises they envision. They don't leave even after they've promised to if Bush or Trump is elected. (Sean Penn and Danny Glover still live here, not in Venezuela.) They stay and complain, no matter how good things are.
Things are better since Trump was elected. Unemployment is at an all-time low. Food stamp use is down by a few million. The economy is so good; small businesses are optimistic for the first time in a decade. Iran is devolving toward regime change. North Korea seems to be de-nuclearizing. China is going to be brought to heel on trade and their theft of intellectual property.
Trump is the adult in the room, the guy who has arrived to fix all the things that have gone wrong over years and years. Death of a Nation does not claim all that; it only suggests that we are once again on the right track. Lincoln was killed by the pro-slavery hysterics who loathed him as much as our left loathes Trump for being right on the economy, on immigration, and on foreign policy, just as Lincoln was right on the abolition of slavery. Trump won the election because he pledged to put America first. The left hates him for that. Why this is leftists' mindset is anyone's guess. But know this: the hysterical reviews of this film are specious. Do not believe them. See the film.