The film was directed by John Sullivan and Indian-American conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, whose book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” intends to present the realization of Obama’s America, as is also presented in this film. The film conjectures what issues the world will face if Obama wins in 2012.
D’Souza features in a clip talking with the President’s half-brother, George Obama, who lives in poverty in Africa, and claims to choose to live in such poverty to identify with the people he loves. He doesn’t seek his brother’s help because Barack Obama “has a family of his own. I am of older age. I can help myself.” This might not have helped D’Souza’s thesis, which aims primarily to suggest Obama was influenced by his absentee father.
“This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nations agenda through reincarnation of his dreams in his son,” D’Souza’s book reads. This, he says, is the root of his anger.
The thesis of the book and the movie is that Obama learned his anti-colonialist, anti-American, anti-Western, anti-capitalist views from his African father, and this despite the fact that his father was absent. The thesis seems surprising to many who view most of Obama’s views to be more consonant with the sorts of left-winged liberals he met at the ivy league schools he’s participated with over the years, and his political stance does not differ greatly from, say, Hillary Clinton’s.
The claim that after four years of watching every word and action of Obama we “Don’t know him,” also seems strange, and many critics of the film have questioned its accuracy in many regards.
In early 2007, D’Souza published The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues that the American cultural left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks. He argues that Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world. The conclusion of the book, as stated by D’Souza in the introduction, is that “[t]he Bush administration and the conservatives must stop promoting American popular culture because it is producing a blowback of Muslim rage. With a few exceptions, the right should not bother to defend American movies, music, and television. From the point of view of traditional values, they are indefensible. Moreover, why should the right stand up for the left’s debased values? Why should our people defend their America? Rather, American conservatives should join the Muslims and others in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberal values.”
Here in “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11″ D’Souza’s discussion seems to be more logical and the shades of his wisdom can be felt but where as in this documentary”Love him, hate him, you don’t know him,” “2016: Obama’s America” it is an assumption by D’Souza and there is nothing wise and logical – it seems being an ardent supporter of Republican party he has just presented a theory. He has no evidences and his imaginary theory is neither fair not truthful enough – it cleary reveals that this is a conspiracy to defame Barack Obama. It would have easy for D’Souza to assume that Barack Obama being a son of a Muslim has some hidden agenda and that is to revert all Americans to Islam in one way or the other (as it is also an assumption / a theory ) that can easily be presented as it doesn’t need any evidence or proofs.