Assassination chic returns

Director Gabriel Range puts a moonbat fantasy on the big screen: the assassination of President Bush. It’s debuting at the Toronto Film Festival on its way to television in the UK.

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

That last part is key to understanding how moonbatty this film is. Its director, the aforementioned Mr. Range, has a history of making alt-future films from the conspiracy theory perspective. Look him up on IMDB and you get the following film titles:

The Man Who Broke Britain (2004) (TV)
Supersleuths: The Menendez Murders (2003) (TV)
The Day Britain Stopped (2003) (TV)
The Great Dome Robbery (2002)

The Man Who Britain’s synopsis reads like this:

A devastating terrorist strike wipes out much of Saudi Arabia’s oil production; the same day a trader of Saudi origin disappears from UK investment bank Sun First Credit (SFCB). Managers soon discover the missing trader, Samir Badr, has built up crippling debts, multiplied a hundred fold by the attacks in Saudi. SFCB, once the toast of the city, is suddenly heading for bankruptcy, taking a whole raft of other banks down with it. The resulting market crash and banking crisis will push Britain and the US into a 21st Century recession: pension funds are slashed, unemployment soars and the housing market collapses. Following the discovery that Badr has committed suicide, a new Al-Qa’eda tape surfaces, in which Bin Laden appears to claim responsibility for the financial turmoil. Suspicion grows that Badr was an Islamic extremist who deliberately sabotaged the bank. As the authorities and the media launch a massive investigation into the apparent Al-Qaeda assault on the pillars of the Western Economy, an alternative explanation emerges. Could greed and incompetence be the real cause of the collapse of Britain’s economy?

So, if the summary is accurate, what at first looks like a devastating terror/economic attack turns out to be a combination of home-grown inside job and stupidity. Is Gabriel Range a 9-11 Truther? Well, wrt The Man Who Broke Britain…

According to the BBC’s own publication, Radio Times, this mockumentary was commissioned by the BBC Public Affairs Unit, and was “designed to reveal the fragility of financial trading systems”. To achieve this end, it presented a series of faked interviews with, amongst others, the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. They purported to explain how one man had “sabotaged” the world’s financial systems, causing the downfall first of his own investment bank employer, then the international banking system, and finally the economy of Britain.

Most of the programme consisted of an extended red herring about a Saudi national trading derivatives in the City. At the very end, however, it emerged that the villain was instead his English boss. The boss had modified contracts intended to protect the financial position of their employer, the fictional Sun First Credit Bank (‘SFCB’): he added a clause that rendered the protection null and void in the unlikely event that oil prices exceeded $75 per barrel. And he did so, we were told, because such contracts were cheaper; the boss expected the savings to increase his personal bonus. The programme drew the conventional anti-business conclusion: financial greed was the cause of the catastrophe, and more government regulation was needed to control it.

That’s got Halliburton and Enron written all over it. And then there’s this, from that same review of TMWBB:

But vigilance is also necessary to prevent terrorism from being used as an excuse. The Man Who Broke Britain illustrated the vested interests that both media and government have in scare-mongering. Fear helps the mass media to boost sales; seeming tough on terrorism gives governments an excuse to increase their powers. Fear itself can be a danger. But it is one we must resist. As Thomas Jefferson rightly observed, “A society that will trade a little order for a little freedom will lose both, and deserve neither”.

That’s the left’s hammer quote used to bludgeon anyone who supports any sort of security measure, no matter how reasonable. It’s a tell that the writer thinks the whole war on terrorism is a trumped up scare-fest, and here we see the writer deploying it to agree with Gabriel Range, director of the film in which President Bush is murdered. The quote itself is usually attributed to Ben Franklin, but never mind that. The actual quote reads:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Which, as I said back in January, is a bit more nuanced than the version lefties usually use.

Verdict: Gabriel Range is just another lefty fantasist who’s hoping President Bush gets killed. He joins loudmouth radio shocker Randi Rhodes, part of the Florida Democrat party and dozens of other unhinged leftwingers in this fantasy.

This is where we are in the defense of civilization right now–fighting off actual terrorists slaughtering innocents for Islam and Western intellectual terrorists who just can’t stand the thought that a Republican is president. So they wish him dead.

By the way, Garrison Keillor–another government-funded leftwinger like Range (whose films show on the BBC)– wants Bush’s supporters dead, too. It’s a Lake Wobegon Jihad, kids.

• Obama administration sources explain Benghazi: “It’s actually closer to us being idiots”
• Woodward: Don’t dismiss Benghazi as a scandal
• Great news: US has misplaced two former Witness Protection Program participants “known or suspected as terrorists”; Update: Failed to update no-fly lists?

Blowback