DISCLAIMER: We don't delve into blatant politics a lot here on The Bot. It isn't what we're about. We are, first and foremost, a science fiction fansite, and that's how we like it. We are, however, a politically-minded science fiction fansite. We don't get into politics often, but we do from time to time and this is one of those times. Usually when we do delve into political stuff, it's politics as it pertains to science fiction. This has nothing to do with science fiction, 2016: Obama's America is a purely political documentary.
2016: Obama's America was written, produced and directed by Dinesh D'souza, the president of The King's College in New York. Mr. D'Souza is a well known political commentator who has written several books on the subject of Barack Obama and his mysterious past, which has been blatantly swept under the rug by almost everyone in the mainstream media. The movie is primarily based on the same research Mr. D'Souza used in writing his book The Roots of Obama's Rage.
The main thesis of the film is that Barack Obama's behavior in the White House can be traced back to his father's own Anti-Colonialist ideology. For those who don't know, Anti-Colonialism, also called Anti-Imperialism, is a political ideology held by third-world countries who have once been part of larger empires, most notably the British. Basically, it is the ideological belief that wealthy nations are only wealthy because they raped the natural resources of the poorer countries, which they had once conquered, and then left those countries with no viable resources to exploit for themselves. Does any of this sound familiar? The rich can only get rich on the backs of the poor.
During the film, Dinesh D'Souza interviews many of the people who knew Barack Obama, Sr. best. People who supported the elder Obama's Anti-Colonialist views, and those who didn't. They all agreed on two things: 1.) Barack Obama, Sr. was unashamedly an Anti-Colonialist and 2.) Barack Obama, Jr. has shown every sign of carrying on that legacy, handed down to him by his estranged father through his mother, who herself was very Anti-American. So Anti-American, in fact, that she sent Barack, Jr. off to live with his grandparents to get him away from the influence of his very Pro-American step-father.
Anti-Colonialism is not a national ideology, it's a global ideology. When Obama talks about the 1% vs the 99%, he isn't talking about here in America. He's talking globally. Basically, to Obama, the poorest of Americans are part of the 1%. I'll say that again, because it might be vaguely important. THE POOREST OF AMERICANS ARE PART OF THE 1% in Obama's worldview. This is why he refuses drilling permits to American oil companies, but grants them to Mexico and Colombia and Brazil. And not only does he grant foreign permits to these countries to drill off our shores, he's subsidizing these foreign programs with tax-payer dollars. We are paying these countries to take our oil that we aren't allowed to use. When one takes Anti-Colonialism into account, Obama's behavior makes perfect sense. He is taking back all of what he considers to be ill-gotten wealth that America has taken from these other countries. This was why he sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that had been given to us as a gift from Great Britain. Churchill was a colonialist. To Obama, he was the devil himself.
I'm not going to get into here about the film being "right-wing propoganda" or "one-sided". The claim of propoganda is flat-out preposterous. Mr. D'Souza has obviously done his research and supports his claims with many facts, and with interviews of people who knew Barack Obama in his formative years. In fact, most of his points are reinforced by President Obama's own words, using passages from Obama's own book, Dreams from my Father. This film is far more than mere propoganda. I will, however, stipulate to it being one-sided. Mr. D'Souza is making an argument. He has a theory and he supports this theory with facts. If his facts are faulty, if there is an argument to be made against Obama having an Anti-Colonialist mentality, then by all means do your own research and make an intelligent argument refuting the claims made in this film. See the movie. If you disagree, then offer up some evidence to support your disagreement. Don't just say it's "fear mongering" or "hate speech" or "propoganda". It isn't any of those things. It's a well thought out argument on the subject. If it leaves you with some questions, great. Look into it and get the answers to your questions. But don't just dismiss it as hogwash, because it certainly isn't that and doing that will only allow Obama to succeed in "fundamentally changing" our beloved nation.
This is prime fodder for discussion, so please, direct your comments to the forum below.
Let me try to explain this again. These are NOT my arguments. They are Dinesh D'Souza's arguments. I enjoyed this film. I endorsed this film. To me, the film answered many questions I had about why Obama would do certain things. Like why would he deny American oil companies permits to drill off the Gulf of Mexico, on the pretext of environmental protection, but then endorse, with tax payer dollars, the Mexican, Colombian and Brazilian nations to drill off those same coasts. I don't have to prove Mr. D'Souza's arguments. He does a good job of doing that himself.
ALSO, I say that Dinesh D'Souza has a THEORY. I never, nor does the film, present this argument as a fact. It's a theory, and the theory is backed up with facts. Good facts, as well. But without knowing Obama's heart, it remains a theory and no one said it wasn't. It's an opinion piece, but a well-educated opinion. This was not Dinesh D'Souza saying "I have heard from a reliable source that President Obama is an Anti-Colonialist America-Hater" and then leave it at that without revealing his source or supplying any evidence to back it up. So to compare this to failed efforts by the left to paint Romney as a tax felon or as someone who gave some woman cancer is just wrong and unfair.
My call to dissenters of this film's thesis to offer evidence in their disagreements was nothing more than an effort to quash in advance anyone who would come here and say "This movie is racist" or "This movie is one-sided" or "This movie is a pack of lies". Read some of the liberal reviews of this movie, that's all they say. They offer no evidence to refute the evidence laid out in the film. You're talking about having a rational, logical discussion, well, that's all I was after in asking dissenters to present evidence as to why the movie is wrong. Otherwise you get into a "is not/is so" argument, and we're getting enough of that schoolyard sandbox crap with the candidates and their campaigns.
One lab accident away from being a supervillain! Bazinga!