Really hope, these people stick to their dirty polictics and leave movies to people who actually do it.

I was skeptical when I watched this so many years ago. When the IRS scandal with them admitting they were targeting conservatives came to light, and the first time thousands of Lois Learner's( head of IRS)emails somehow were lost, I started believing. Now knowing what has been done, and how corrupt the IRS has become under Obama, although the corruption probably started with Clinton, and was not challenged by Bush, is amazing. 30,000 more lost emails, and 50,000 texts lost by the FBI has brought me back to re-watching this very insightful movie.

I watched this film; I felt that Dinesh handled himself well, despite the obvious red flags about Obama, and despite Dinesh's crystallized conclusion about Obama, did not push it onto the viewers or the interviewees too much. When watching the part where he interviews half-brother of Obama, I got the impression that Dinesh was trying to get the half-brother to feel that Obama should have assisted him(the half-brother) more. Like he was suggesting 'Obama didn't really care about you, nor did he take care of you; despite that, he was so obsessed over his biological father'. Despite that, overall, if Dinesh doesn't support Obama, he definitely heavily refrained from harshness, possibly because he identified with Obama, having similar and identical situations. Also, likewise, it seemed that half-brother of Obama could have affirmed the sentiment of being left in the dark by Obama, being unassisted by a relative who was well-off or able to alleviate a struggle, but instead replied with discretion and reservation, in the same way Dinesh discretely refrained from pushing the inquiry.I read the beginning of someone else's review, and it stated: "Obama is an anti-colonialist." 'that was the main accusation of the film-- which takes its sweet time getting to the point.' And to that, and to those similar sentiments, I would iterate this; Why wouldn't it take it's sweet time to show all the trouble getting to the point? Does one simply claim 'Obama is an anti-colonialist' without any questions asked and nothing proved? That's what slander is known as.That is the point of going through all the accounts, and the input, and the feedback, and the investigation.A claim is a prosecution, a claim is a defense, Why are you undermining the reason for people to prove claims? Implying that we shouldn't find out the verity of anything?What was sufficient? Apparently, for you, it was superfluous, but for others, it's not enough evidence.People should expect more than one example to 'prove' a claim like 'this person is anti-colonialist'.Here's the facts though; Obama's relatives and/or acquaintances were contacted, and those individuals affirmed some things and/or denied some things.Witnesses provide credibility to a person's defense or prosecution.Proving whether or not someone is anti-colonialist doesn't happen by simply asking; couldn't Dinesh simply have asked Barack Obama to 'get to the point' without taking 'his sweet time'?That's the whole point of ignoring the suspect and asking the witnesses that spent time with the suspect.The more the witnesses, the more the interviews, the more comparison to see how stories match up, more data, more evidence, and closer to proving, so that the claim is no longer a mere claim.Not to mention that this was obviously made to please the eyes with the production and atmosphere. How else do we get the common heathen attention? The heathen that doesn't care about what's important, but rather what's attractive and entertaining?Why have video at all? Why not strictly audio? What purpose is there for us to look at moving images? Why have audio, even? What's the purpose of all that money and time in producing audio when we could simply write it down on paper so that we can read it?So, yea, someone who actually knows what he or she is doing will take their 'sweet time' for the sake of ignoramus' who need distractions to pay attention to the points, spelled out and spaced out in a way they can digest and follow when the story becomes too much for them to make cognitive.

This documentary is in large part a work of fiction. There is some facts involved: yes Obama was born in Hawaii and yes he spent some of his childhood in Kenya. But to say that his absentee father, who he met only twice, influenced him to become anti-colonialism and anti-American is at best, completely one man's opinion, and at worst, completely bogus. Obama haters want to believe these lies about Obama and that is the motivation for this film. (And it came out soon before the election. Hmmmm... what a coincidence). The truth is that they are not grounded in anything except opinion, biased opinion at that. If Obama is really going to accomplish the things that D'Souza claims, he needs to get really busy. Yes, I actually have the crazy idea that Obama, the president of the United States, actually wants to see the United States succeed, not fail. When the predictions in this movie don't come to pass, will D'Souza and his D'Souzites own up to it? I think I know the answer to that already.