• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

President Obama and his progressive cronies have struck a series of body blows to Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

Reagan’s vision of a nation fueled by individual responsibility, limited government and the rekindled American dream has been softened up by a flurry of punches to the midsection.

With the mantra of “not letting a good crisis go to waste,” Obama and friends have capitalized on fearful Americans looking for security during economic calamity to launch all kinds of big-government solutions that have “progressively” undermined the free, independent and morally accountable people of the U.S., pushing them even more toward becoming dependents of the state.

But in the new film “I Want Your Money,” the Gipper takes Obama’s body blows – and then delivers one haymaker of a knockout punch.

And here’s the bare-knuckles bottom line: While Obamanomics claims to have “saved” 4 million jobs (many of which will evaporate when the government money funding them is dried up) in the current recession, Reagan took a similarly depressed economic handoff and created 17 million private-sector jobs, fueling one of the biggest booms of prosperity in U.S. history.

As “I Want Your Money” demonstrates – not just through Obama’s and Reagan’s presidencies, but through Bush’s, Carter’s, Clinton’s, Kennedy’s, FDR’s and more – the big-government types always talk of “hope” in difficult times, but it’s the small-government types that actually deliver it. Why? Because one economic philosophy works, and the other doesn’t.

The film “I Want Your Money” is a discussion, a documentary and a string of interviews and clips of inspiring (or startling, depending on who’s speaking) speeches interspersed between three computer-animated shorts that ask the question, “What would Reagan say, were he put in the ring with Obama?”

At its heart, the film takes an educational answer, with “Professor Reagan” explaining to a classroom of past and present political players (including Obama, Bush, Nixon, Palin, Schwarzenegger and more) the fundamental difference between a big-government – even socialist – approach to running the country and a limited-government approach that enables a self-governed people to forge their own future.

In this respect, “I Want Your Money” is a great primer for young Republicans and tea-party types who may be only newly engaged in politics. The film removes the mask years of liberal media slant have written over Reagan and strips the façade from the “new” and “change-y” Obama.

In fact, using past presidents’ speeches – including Carter, FDR, LBJ and more – “I Want Your Money” makes it clear Obama’s ideas are nothing new, but simply recycled and reconstituted socialist progressivism, although – like so many laundry detergents – now in more concentrated form.

Democrats may learn a lesson, too, from “I Want Your Money” by listening to a JFK speech in the film, in which young Kennedy shows the startling difference between a common-sense Democrat like JFK and the elitist progressive wing of Obama, as the current president fuels class warfare but Kennedy touts the virtue of … of all things … lower taxes for the wealthy.

Interviewee Michael Reagan sums it up in a stunning but accurate statement: “If John Kennedy were alive today, he would not be a Democrat.”

For the most part, however, “I Want Your Money” will do little to convince the Left of its folly. Cheer and rally Reagan devotees? Yes. Ground and educate conservative newbies in sound economic and political theory? Absolutely. But sway a Democrat? Not a chance.

Watching the film, I couldn’t help but notice that Obama was never given a fair chance to make his argument. “I Want Your Money” simply lampoons the Left too strongly to avoid offending its members.

And while the animated shorts pull no punches, they treat Reagan with transparently obvious kid gloves. Bush is portrayed as a bumbling idiot, Schwarzenegger as a buffoon, Palin even as an empty-headed pretty face (and the Democrats with even more scorn), but Reagan gets none of it. In fact, the movie completely whiffs on the biggest and most common criticism of Reagan: the ballooning national deficit under his presidency.

“I Want Your Money” glosses over a typical Democrat’s objections, making it appear too much like propaganda to be as effective as it could have been in political debate.

But the film does land a hefty punch in demonstrating the spiritual bankruptcy of socialism by the sword.

“Is it right,” the film asks, “for government to take people’s money and tell them how to spend it?”

WND columnist Star Parker, in particular, claims socialism is “a violation of Scripture.”

“A religious community that understands the 10th Commandment does not covet,” she explains, “and socialism is rooted in covetousness.”

Kate Obenshain, vice president of Young America’s Foundation, further points out that if the church were doing its God-given job, distraught Americans wouldn’t so quickly turn to socialist ideas for “hope” and “change”:

“It’s not Christian to allow your neighbors to become dependent on government,” she says.

In the end, “I Want Your Money” may not win many debates, but it is well and professionally made, reasonably entertaining and engaging, and it arms those inclined to agree with its premise with the tools to go out and “win one more for the Gipper.”

Content advisory:

  • “I Want Your Money” contains only a few, mild profanities.
  • The film contains several instances of an animated Bill Clinton leering and making suggestive comments toward female characters. It also includes scenes of Southern California with women in revealing bikinis. Otherwise, there is no romantic or sexual content.
  • The film’s only violence is the animated Hillary Clinton who repeatedly slaps her husband for his behavior.
  • The film contains no overt occult content. It does, however, contain several interviews with people discussing the role of God in government, the spiritual ramifications of capitalism vs. socialism and the Creator as the source of our unalienable rights and liberty.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.