Review of 2016: Obama's America (2012) by Alleneh — 31 Aug 2012

I have been a registered Republican since June 12, 1968. And, I was totally unimpressed with the movie. Especially from someone who is an "Indian immigrant" to this country, and had the good fortune of attending Dartmouth College. Totally slanted, and devoid of objectivity. The use of the word "collective" early in the movie told me that the influences of Ayn Rand are motivating this individual. He talks about racism in the U.S., and does not compare it to the caste system in India. The dishonesty in terms of "returning Churchill's bust" proves the movie is another attempt to "Swiftboat" someone. Churchill's bust was on loan and scheduled for return. Another bust has replaced it.

If Obama entered office with a rich economy, full employment, and a robust annual increase in the GDP I could easily understand criticism of a failed presidency that "spends money like crazy", and introduced bills that enhanced our economic melt-down. The writer fails to discuss how much money Reagan spent, and how much he increased the national debt. The writer fails to disclose "how the American economy was on the verge of a major depression in 2009". He fails to disclose that some of the remedies employed by Obama were supported by Bush, and many Republicans. He failed to disclose the fact that Bush did not increase American forces in Afghanistan. He failed to discusss how Bush failed to use drone technology, or how Bush failed to chase bin Laden. He failed to discuss how the Iraq war was based on bogus intelligence.

The writer distorts the discussion of the Falkland Islands issue. The writer falsely asserts Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands to Argentina. In fact, "the U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations".

The writer distorts our relationship with Israel. Carter, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton employed the same strategy that Obama has embarked on. The appointment of George Mitchell as special envy was not discussed at all. Nor did the writer talk about NATO and European support for intervention in Libya, and the lack of international support for the intervention in Syria. The writer fails to talk about our cooperation with Israel in terms of cyberattacks against Iran, and the sanctions placed against Iran that were not present under the former administration.

Although it is true that Obama's father lived in Kenya, the writer provides no credible evidence that Obama's father influenced him in terms of "anti-colonialism".

The reference to nuclear weapons fails to disclose that many Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for a reduction in the number of warheads.

We've experienced a number of tax cuts, engaged in two wars that were not paid for, and added prescription drugs Part D without paying for it. And, the writer decries Obama's desire to let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire. The writer never talks about the fact that Obama advocates tax cuts for the middle class, and tax reform.

The writer suggests that India and parts of Asia are embracing "America's dream" at a time when Obama is embracing "anti-colonialism". The writer fails to mention that the economic booms in India as well as China were partially due to outsourcing prior to Obama taking office, and that both countries have favored trade relations with the U.S.

The writer talks about how Obama is in the White House solely due to race. False. Any Democrat would have won in 2008, just as any Democrat would have won in 1976. Just as any Republican would have won in 1980. The anti-Bush sentiment was very strong in 2008, and totally missing from the writer's analysis. The writer suggests that Davis, Ayers, Said, Unger, and Wright are trully "Obama's fathers". There is absolutely no connection, logical, evidentiary, or otherwise to make the leap.

I do compliment the writer for admitting Obama was born in Hawaii. At least we don't see D'Sousa as a blatant birther as so many other people are.

D'Sousa seems to be an intelligent individual. But, shame on him for the shoddy worksmanship. He is obviously a right wing conservative, and does not attack the project with any degree of objectivity. Sad.