Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party movie full length review - First Historical Documentary Founded on Facts About the Democratic Party
1. All video documentaries compromise a subject. If you're a graduate of the public indoctrination centers, it's easy to discount a documentary that covers the Rest of the Story. h/t Paul Harvey.
2. All video compromises a subject. By necessity, not everything can be covered. This plays into the hands of propagandists in both directions. The Left can cherry pick, and anyone who dares to resist will never be able to cover all the cherries - it's hard enough to cover agriculture without having to give the life-history of every cherry, peach, and avocado in the grove. Not to mention the grains, vegetables, and pork bellies - just as an example.
3. Given these caveats, Dinesh and crew did an excellent job in presenting, and dramatizing the assigned topic: The Democrat party.
How do you know?
4. Go back to your public indoctrination history books, if you have any, and look for the party affiliations. ... Most affiliations are not noted. The few party affiliations in the 'official' version of 'history' reverse history. Democrats are heroes. Republicans are villains. Heroes are Democrats. Villains are well ... nothing unless they can be tied to the narrative.
5. Margaret Sanger - another review implies that Sanger's views were mainstream. No, they were not. Sanger's views - both her racist views, and her views on baby murder - have never represented the majority of Americans. Her views were mainstream all right - among Progressive leaders at the top, and among those who believed the lies at the bottom. Americans in the middle by and large - as now - did not hold such extreme views.
How do you know? Just ask yourself how many of the people you know - including Democrat voters - believe everything spewed from the Established Media sources? And the few who do? What of them? Do they strike you as thoughtful, well educated citizens, or louts who haven't read a book since High School?
6. My adult children and I saw the film last night in Frisco, Texas. To see the film any earlier we would have had to attend one of the special, limited openings last week. Keep that in mind - the only people who attended those openings were guests and press. You can guess who didn't like it.
Why would someone post a fake review? ... Duh.
7. One of the trailers was a revision of the pro-Klan film - The Birth of a Nation. This racist screed was featured in Hillary's America because Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) screened it in the White House. The new version of the film retells the heroic story of Nat Turner's ill-fated slave revolt in 1831. Even assuming the film is not a propaganda hit piece - despite the October 2016 release date, giving it the same title as one of the most infamous - and racist - films of all time is agitprop. It is not a stretch to suggest the film could incite the murder of police officers - a decidedly perverse result given that the objective of the first film was to defend lynching and incite white supremacy.
8. ... Having said all that. Will you like the film? Will you learn anything? Is it going to change minds? Will it move America in the right direction - towards freedom, prosperity, the rule of law, and tolerance? I doubt it. The fact is that to understand the film - and know that the facts selected for inclusion are representative of the Criminal Elite ... you have to actually know something. And just reading biographies or histories may not help since almost everything published in the last 50 years by the academic press only reflects one side - and that's Democrat's side.
In my case, for example, my grandfather worked for a guy who worked for Lyndon Johnson when he was Governor of Texas. I would not suggest LBJ was the type of racist implied in the film, but he was a racist, and he was corrupt. I have eyewitness testimony - from my grandfather - to this fact. When my grandfather turned away from the Democrat party - when he hired black truck drivers. The Klan attacked. His business was torched. His home was vandalized. His car was shot up. Had he not been good friends with the county sheriff, things might have gotten much worse.
Without such testimony, I might never have realized how to separate fact from fiction. I might have gone through life believing everything I was told in the public indoctrination center. Instead, I educated myself - and I learned that the whole history is far more colorful - and morally unclear - than the one offered by the Democrats.
9. I gave Hillary's America a 10-star rating for its argument - not for its impact. The film is persuasive, and it offers strong visual illustrations to back up the points made by the dry interviews. But the film covers over 200 hundred years of history.
Necessity forces it to compromise. Such comprises are entirely justified - because it is one lone flick trying to fix decades of distortion. If truth and lies shared the same playing field, the film might warrant the criticism of biting off more than it could chew (about six to ten times more). But that's not the case.
Every topic cannot be given equal weight. Important topics were left out - and no I don't think any of them were exculpatory. More like gasoline. And exceptions were not covered. For those of us who have seen the Klan Party morph into the Fake-Rainbow-Tolerance Party, the film is a salve. But for those who don't know anything, I doubt they will learn anything.