Review – 2016: Obama’s America (Updates)

Last night I went to see 2016: Obama’s America, the movie based on Dinesh D’Souza’s books:Roots of Obama’s Rage. I went into knowing what to expect and had read a good amount of Mr. D’Souza’s writings prior to seeing the film. If you have not read anything by him, I would suggest the Forbes article from 2010 as a jumping off or starting point. I found D’Souza’s writings compelling and arguments well laid out. The movie brings those arguments to life and puts them in a very digestible format.

Having seen it myself, I now can see why the film is doing well even after its initial showings in Houston. In fact, very well for a documentary style film. The audience that watched with me last night was interesting. The theater was more than two-thirds full for one thing. For another, it was very likely I was one of the youngest people in there and a lady never tells her age, but  I am somewhere over 40. What was also interesting was the hearty applause from the crowd at the close of the film. One woman even stood up and addressed the audience after the applause ended, asking for anyone interested in helping with a voter registration drive to see her by the doorway.

From the film’s website, here is the “about” section which is an apt teaser as to what is in the film for those unfamiliar with D’Souza’s writing:

2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, “If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?”

Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America’s ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn’t know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him–who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world.

Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle. The journey moves quickly over the arc of the old colonial empires, into America’s empire of liberty, and we see the unfolding realignment of nations and the shape of the global future.

Emotionally engaging, 2016 Obama’s America will make you confounded and cheer as you discover the mysteries and answers to your greatest aspirations and worst fears.

Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.

Here is one of the trailers:

Warning, some Spoilers ahead.

I said earlier that the movie takes D’Souza’s theories and puts them in a digestable format. To expand on that, I would say the use of film was essential in laying out the roadmap of the roads Obama traveled to become to be who he is and showing the bridge on that map to the roads and actions he now takes as President.  The anticolonial framework of the father is applied to the son. Once that is in place, the decisions of Obama as President fit in quite effortlessly. If I had to pick a quote from the film to sum that roadmap up, it would be this one:

“Obama has a dream, a dream from his father – that the sins of colonialism be set right, and America be downsized. America has a dream, from our founding fathers.  That together we must perfect liberty, and that America must grow so that liberty grows. Which dream will we carry into 2016?”

For me, using Obama’s own voice from the audio version of Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father”, added to the effectiveness of the key points D’Souza lays out about Obama’s past. By the end, the sound of Obama’s voice as he reads his own book passages really starts to grate on you. I think that grating happens because the audience is hearing Obama’s confessions of who he really is in his own words and voice and that these confessions have been out for a long time — and ignored.

The movie wasn’t overly dramatic but it sends home the anticolonial theme quite effectively and more than adequately explains Obama’s aversion to American Exceptionalism. There is a scene in the film where D’Souza has tracked down close friends of Obama Senior. One such interview is with Philip Ochieng. In the film, Ochieng says that he sees the dreams of Obama Sr. alive and well in the actions of Obama Jr.; that they are one in the same. Ochieng made some noise about D’Souza’s fundraising for George Obama with an article in 2008. The 2008 piece is rather hostile, but the interview in the film shows Ochieng as a bit guarded but very cooperative — even prideful of the the fact he sees President Obama fulfilling the dreams of Obama Senior. The final paragraph of that 2008 article is extremely telling:

“That is one answer to those who seek to ruin Obama’s chances by cooking up stories that he is cruel to his African family. My advice to Americans is: Take Barack to the Oval Office because he represents genuine change for America’s psychology.”

For me, I wish D’Souza had expanded a bit more on the plight of Israel with Obama as President of the United States. The movie touches on it but doesn’t delve too much into it. Obama’s foreign policy seems incoherent until you put the pieces together and recognize that Obama views Israel through Palestinian and anticolonial glasses. For Obama, Israel has to go. Obama actions: the 1967 lines, the Cairo speech, the funding of Gaza and the supporting of uprisings in one Middle Eastern nation versus another. These actions have one purpose – to drive war to Israel.

Near the end of the movie, the “Founding Fathers” of Barack Obama’s life are laid out in a sort of summary of who was an influence on Obama.  The movie lays out each of these ‘Founding Fathers’ as:

Frank Marshall Davis – Communist

Bill Ayers – Domestic Terrorist

Edward Said – Anti-Zionist

Roberto Unger – Far Leftist Liberal, with buyers remorse – sort of.

Rev. Jeremiah WrightBlack Liberation Theology Pusher and Anti-zionist

Nice list of male role models there…yikes.

The film is very effectively in helping to understand Obama’s world view, which in turn explains his actions as President. He’s been raised by a mother who herself came from a family that looked favorably on Communism and an absentee father who ground an axe against colonialism his entire life.  Add living outside the US during his formative years and an early mentor like Frank Marshall Davis and there is no denying Obama, or anyone raised as he was for that matter, would emerge with a healthy disdain for a capitalism based nation like the United States.

Taking his past into account, Obama’s worldview then can be boiled down into two groups: the oppressors and the oppressed. The part that turns your stomach then is the realization that ‘Hope and Change’ of 2008 wasn’t meant as a slogan for the American people. It was a slogan for who Obama deemed as the oppressed people outside America.

Update: Linked by Doug Ross – THANK YOU!

More Updates:  New reviews to cheer up the commentors stuck on 2-4 years old articles & arguments. I’m interested by how a coherent, well laid out and calm psychology-driven timeline style idea like D’Souza’s as ticked off so many people. Perhaps he should have called him a secret Muslim infiltrator with Marxist Socialist dreams and saved the time and energy.

About these ads

About ladyliberty1885

I'm a Conservative minded mother and wife living in the Triangle area of NC. I began writing in 2009 via my LadyLiberty1885 blog. My writing can also be found at DaTechGuy, WatchdogWire - NC, StopCommonCoreNC.org, TheConMom and at WizBang. I also write science fiction novellas that are, as of yet, unpublished and dabble in other genres from time to time.
This entry was posted in Obama, The Articles and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Review – 2016: Obama’s America (Updates)

  1. Pingback: The Morning Links (8/28/12) | Lady Liberty 1885

  2. RichB says:

    Regarding your statement “Obama has proven himself to be anything but typical – even his own party finds him unnervingly far left. ”

    This is absurd. I’m a leftist independent, hence not remotely as left as others I know. NONE of us are happy with Obama due to the fact that he’s turned out to be more of a progressive than a Democrat… and not Liberal at all. We all wanted single payer healthcare. What did we end up with? The Republican plan (aka. Romneycare) which uses private health insurance companies. We wanted taxes returned to Clinton-era rates, but all we received were extensions to the Bush tax cuts. Same with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, Iraq has wound down and Afghanistan promises to do so, but it’s been almost an entire term! Did Gitmo close? Nope.

    To us on the left, it’s like we had Bush for a 3rd term. “Far Left”? Please!

    • “I’m a leftist independent”

      No, really?

      • Laurie says:

        I wish I could like this. I laughed when I read that!!!! “leftist independent” HeeHaw!

      • RichB says:

        Once upon a time, there was a political party called “Republican”, which was populated by liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans. Perhaps you never heard of it, but Mitt Romney’s father had – since he was a liberal Republican. I was one as well. Pro states-rights, pro death penalty, pro 2nd amendment. Voted for Nixon and Reagan. Then the party went… I guess the technical term would be “Christian Fundamentalist Social Values Wacko”.

        I couldn’t bare registering as a Democrat, so I became independent… since all liberal and moderate Repubilcans were from then on given a litmus test and declared RINO if they didn’t embrace the new extremist party.

        Back in the day, we were all about solving real-world problems. What is the discourse today? The definition of rape. Abortion. Sexuality.

        Laugh if you want, but I miss the old “rational” Republican party.

      • Republicans made the mistake of allowing social issues into the mix at all. Now, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be some dialogue about social issues and relevant legislation surrounding those discussions, however the Republicans allowed the Democrats to control the conversation from the get-go. I think if one looks, they will find the implementation of political correctness as one of the arrows that removed the conviction from the Republican party. They allowed themselves to be shamed.
        So much as the Republicans may have their “Christian Fundamentalist Social Values Wackos” as you put it, the Democrats have a polar opposite to them as well. Somewhere in the middle, I think, is where most Americans land.

  3. Rattoo says:

    High quality cinematography, well researched. I came away feeling greater compassion and sympathy for Obama. D’Souza was quite fair and used Obama’s own words to tell the story. Nevertheless, the truth about Obama’s background and neocolonial based hatred is frightening. It is now clear why Obama hates America and is hell-bent on destroying it. Obama’s fundamental ignorance of Economics and Finance is also explained. Anyone who votes for Obama in 2012 will have to be suicidal.
    http://www.economicnoise.com (http://s.tt/1lGZX)

  4. SteveJ says:

    A good column by George Will in which D’Souza’s article (of which his movie is a rehash) is referenced and described accurately.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030404613.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

    • Thanks for the link – Will, like all opponents of D’Soouza’s ideas, miss the boat by opersimplifying – perhaps intentionally, in his zeal to take down the theory as we see here:

      “To the notion that Obama has a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview, the sensible response is: If only. Obama’s natural habitat is as American as the nearest faculty club; he is a distillation of America’s academic mentality; he is as American as the other professor-president, Woodrow Wilson. A question for former history professor Gingrich: Why implicate Kenya? ”

      Will was clearly looking to kick Gingrich in the knees with this article. Huckabee too. It’s not so much about D’Souza.
      Will is of the same ilk who dismissed even looking into Obama’s past in 2008. They are hardly in a position to question when they have not.

  5. Nathan Noll says:

    “Anticolonialism,” guilt-by-association, fear tactics. Just another day in the life of the far right. Why do we need a pundit’s dissection of our President’s worldview when he has been in office for nearly 4 years, and anyone with half a brain could draw their own conclusion? It is a bit jarring how conservatives cannot pose an argument based on fact, as you said above, “it is a movie about taking D’Souza’s theories and putting them in a digestable format.” THEORIES. And he talks about Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright!? Is this guy trapped in 2008, we’ve already been there and done that! Edward Klein guy already tried this tactic of presenting Obama as a fraud with “The Amateur,” one of the worst books I’ve read in a while. We get it, you think Obama hates America, yet it is ironic because most of the hate and anger seems to come from the far right.

    • Your entire posts is very angry, yet you accuse others of it. Nice start!

      • Nathan Noll says:

        I’m not sure how you concluded my post was angry (I’d say irritated is more accurate). I think it is telling that you used my supposed tone to ignore the message of my post. But that’s not what I cam to discuss. The AP did a fact check on the video that I’d highly consider some of you read. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_2016_OBAMAS_AMERICA_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-28-03-20-56

      • Your tone seemed clear, but if you say otherwise I apologize.

        The AP for a fact check? And by Beth Fouhy no less… I’m chuckling. She, like every single article opposing D’Souza, ignores how he was raised and the psychology of having an absentee father who glorified by his mother. I’m not surprised – she needs it too look like a legit take down but it’s clear she hasn’t seen the film nor read D’Souza’s book.

        “”Ann separates Barry from Lolo’s growing pro-Western influence,” D’Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.”

        Fouhy dutifully presents all the exact talking points that the White House uses about D’Souza. She’s a good media lapdog like the rest of the AP.
        In Dreams from my Father, Obama states his mother sends him back to Hawaii to be educated sure.. AND to get him away from Lolo. I’d wager she hasn’t read Dreams from my Father either. Even the title is a tip off on how obsessed he is with him.

      • Nathan Noll says:

        In Response to the comment below that I can’t reply to:

        “The AP for a fact check? And by Beth Fouhy no less… I’m chuckling. ”

        First of all, if you are going to drag the Associated Press’ name through the mud (an organization whose stories are published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, Republican and Democrat leaning), you should probably have some evidence to back this up. As for “Beth Fouhy no less,” do not pretend that this woman is some kind of big name, partisan hack. You seem to imply you are familiar with her work ,which appears to consist of election 2012 coverage. I have a pretty significant superstition that you had never heard of her until now. Anyways, I’ll play along with your ad hominem accusations – let’s hear why she should be completely disregarded.

        “She, like every single article opposing D’Souza, ignores how he was raised and the psychology of having an absentee father who glorified by his mother. I’m not surprised – she needs it too look like a legit take down but it’s clear she hasn’t seen the film nor read D’Souza’s book.”

        So basically, nobody can legitimately oppose D’Souza’s article. Instead of specifically addressing her assertions, you speak in ambiguities and speculate that the AP writer did not even see the film. You have no proof of this or the fact that she has reason to “take down” D’Souza. You don’t have evidence to back up your claims; why can’t you see this!?

        “Fouhy dutifully presents all the exact talking points that the White House uses about D’Souza. She’s a good media lapdog like the rest of the AP.
        In Dreams from my Father, Obama states his mother sends him back to Hawaii to be educated sure.. AND to get him away from Lolo. I’d wager she hasn’t read Dreams from my Father either. Even the title is a tip off on how obsessed he is with him.”

        More baseless accusations and ad-hominem attacks: “dutifully presents all the exact talking points…” You are not saying anything of substance. But even worse, you are incorrect and even come across as a hypocrite – you claim that Obama states his mother sent him to Hawaii, in addition to education, to get away from Lolo, and that the AP writer clearly didn’t read Dreams From My Father. Well, I assert that YOU obviously have not read the book or failed to recall the details, because I am looking at Chapter 3 right now and it says: “It was time for me to attend an American school, she said; I’d run through all the lessons of my correspondence course.” That is why he went back to Hawaii to live with the Grandparents! There is no mention of Lolo. I searched through my e-book every instance of the word “Lolo” and nothing. The burden of proof is on you, but based on your review and comments, your credibility and integrity could not be much lower.

      • The AP is known for it’s bias – especially in the last 5-7 years, if that’s news to you, I’m sorry.

        I am familiar with Fouhy, but feel free to believe what you will. They are not ad hominem attacks if they are correct, which they are. Her story is very similar to the various statements the White House put out around 3 years ago. Go do your own homework on her – start here and then look at her “reporting” on other topics which amazingly seem to turn in Sarah Palin hit pieces: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/11/21/ap-attempting-rewrite-history-obamas-and-dems-occupy-movement-support-al

        “So basically, nobody can legitimately oppose D’Souza’s article.”
        That’s not what I’ve said, merely that every single piece you have posted as proof has dismissed (or entirely ignored) the psychology, timeline and influences. You yourself have ignored it as well.
        I find it amusing you accuse me of baseless ad hominem attacks when you’re own posts have been just that. I disagree with you. Get over it. My review and comments are subjective, as is the film and newsflash, so is your opinion as well. My credibility and integrity are hardly lessened by offering an opinion counter to yours based on the film & supporting materials.

        I’ve read both of D’Souza’s books. Dreams from My Father and seen have the movie (obviously). You do not want D’Souza to be right, whereas I can see the path D’Souza has laid out and made his case – I found it compelling and quite a lot of it fit, therefore I rest my own case. Go see the movie. :)

        here, have some more torture

        And this -

    • Laurie says:

      Obviously you didn’t see the movie so spare us your review. And I don’t think Obama hates America. He wants to transform America to be on equal footing with every other country, which he referred to in his “Exceptionalism” speech. No one is immune from the environment they grew up in, not even Obama. How many communists did you know growing up? Me? Zero. Most of my people were Democrats ah la JFK.

  6. SteveJ says:

    If the conclusion of the film is that Obama is ‘anti-colonialism’ then
    - why is Obama supporting continued multinational corporate power in Africa through expansion of AFRICOM (US / NATO African forces)?
    - why did he unilaterally commit US military to bring down Kaddafi, who was the best chance toward making Africa truly independent and unified in history?
    Also:
    If Obama’s secret agenda is to hamstring Corporate power to downsize America ..
    - why immediately stack your administration with Goldman Sacs / JP Morgan and other corporate snakes?
    - why is Jamie Dimon some kind of close advisor?
    - why have NONE of the Corporate TBTF CEO’s and other high management been charged, tried, and otherwise held accountable for their crimes?
    - why sign off on Dodd Frank (which was written by those same banks?

    There are legitimate Conservative arguments to use against Obama that will create enthusiasm among Conservatives as well as persuade independents.
    People like D’Souza don’t believe or use them.

    • - why is Obama supporting continued multinational corporate power in Africa through expansion of AFRICOM (US / NATO African forces)?
      because he must uplift the oppressed; it’s pretty simple.

      - why did he unilaterally commit US military to bring down Kaddafi, who was the best chance toward making Africa truly independent and unified in history?
      Because it serves his purposes with regard to erasing Israel.

      -why immediately stack your administration with Goldman Sacs / JP Morgan and other corporate snakes?
      Who better to advise you on how to do said hamstringing? Also, he’s rewarding his faithful donors. Taking money from the rich oppressors to bankroll your agenda is probably poetic to him.

      - why is Jamie Dimon some kind of close advisor?
      Because he bundled millions for him in 2008. Again, reward the faithful. It’s ironic Dimon doesn’t see Obama using him.

      - why have NONE of the Corporate TBTF CEO’s and other high management been charged, tried, and otherwise held accountable for their crimes?
      Same as above – reward and protect the money men until you have no use for them.

      - why sign off on Dodd Frank (which was written by those same banks?
      Uhh, wow – why wouldn’t he is a better question. Start here and let me know whey you figured it out: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/?s=dodd-frank

      D’Souza makes a compelling case, which apparently you disagree with. That’s fine, but a lot of what he proposes fits. We know very little about Obama, who is to say D’Souza isn’t right?

      Thanks for stopping by!

    • SteveJ says:

      By your “reasoning”, Obama’s a bit too busy paying off entrenched interests to pursue anti-Colonialism.

      By the way, another good Conservative analysis here with a good link to a Heather MacDonald column.

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2010/09/dinesh_dsouza_disgraces_himself

      • “By your “reasoning”, Obama’s a bit too busy paying off entrenched interests to pursue anti-Colonialism.”
        No, that’s not what I said or reasoned at all. The two are not mutually exclusive.

        MacDonald is taking the literalist route like her colleagues and ignoring any of the psychology and underpinnings of D’Souza’s arguments. Loved the 2 year old trip down take-down lane though. Thanks for the link.

  7. MM says:

    Wow, Mia Farrow took the time to channel Neil Armstrong and get back to you.

    Cool, but did she get the right stuff? So to speak?

  8. SteveJ says:

    All due respect, in my view, Obama is a typical American liberal who is relatively easy to beat. But you would have to nominate an actual Conservative, and you would have to attack typical American liberal tenets.

    The neoconservative infestation of the Republican has done nothing but help Democrats. D’Souza is an example of that neocon infestation.

    There is a good Conservative write-up of D’Souza here:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/obama-anticolonial-hegemonist/

    • There is nothing typical about Obama nor would I call D’Soouza a neocon — He’s a Reaganite who worked in Reagan’s White House.
      Thank you for the link, I took a look at it. Why do you consider him a neocon? ie, what is your definition?

      Larison clearly doesn’t like D’Souza and wants to think Obama is just your typical democrat. Obama has proven himself to be anything but typical – even his own party finds him unnervingly far left. I picked at a few sections below…

      FTA: “Even if Obama were anticolonialist, it wouldn’t actually explain why he is “anti-business,” but then you would have to believe that he is strongly anti-business in the first place. ”

      Uh, yeah actually it would. Draining the life blood of the colonialists (or Oppressors as I suggested they be called in my review) to benefit the oppressed is part and parcel of the anticolonial framework.

      FTA: “D’Souza trots out the very tired, already old canard that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism.”
      It’s not a canard if it’s true, which it is. The author needs a dictionary.

      FTA:
      “That claim about the source of Western prosperity is mostly untrue, but it certainly is true that there were many colonial powers that did invade, occupy and loot countries in Asia, Africa and South America. If Obama were an “anti-colonialist” in that he regards the old colonial empires poorly, this would actually put him very much in the American tradition and specifically in the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tradition of the Democratic Party for much of the last century. That isn’t what D’Souza is claiming. He’s claiming that Obama is a “Third World” anti-colonialist and completely divorced from the American experience.”

      That entire paragraph made me laugh. I’m not sure what he’s playing at here, but he totally disregards any of the psychology linked to D’Souza’s argument. Talk about hammering a square peg into a round hole.
      Anyway…

      All due respect, I would urge him to not only read D’Souza’s book (and not just the Forbes jumping off piece) but also to go see the film. I find Larison’s article devoid of historical knowledge as many of his others have been. He likes the low hanging fruit and for someone others consider as a paleocon, he really misses the mark in this article on anti-colonialism. You can read more about Mr. Larison here:

      http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/daniel-larison-prefab-conservative.html

      http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/daniel-larisons-paleoconservative.html

      http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/daniel-larison-ron-paul-and-th

      Sorry. I think he’s wrong.

    • SteveJ says:

      I like Jeffrey Lord — quite a bit.

      But the particular Spectator link you pasted involved an article where Lord butchered the Monroe Doctrine. It was one of the worst articles he’s ever written.

      Dr. Larison received his PhD in history from the University of Chicago. The PhD emphasizing Byzantine history and the undergrad Western History.

      You’r assertion that his articles are devoid of historical knowledge is not credible.

Comments are closed.