newimaginarything 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.

MovieHoliks I recently caught Dinesh D'Souza's more recent documentary "America: Imagine the World Without Her" off Netflix, so thought I'd watch his first film off HULU. It's not a bad movie really; plays out more as a bio-doc. of President Obama. In fact, it's got some really interesting analytics of our 44th president- some things I didn't know. I liked the movie more on that angle. But when it tries to convey Hillary Clinton and Obama's pledging allegiance to community organizer Saul Alinsky- who Dinesh compares to the devil!- it loses me. Alinsky- no, not perfect by any means, but he was considered the father of community organizing, and started a lot of great things. Dinesh's major analysis of our current president seems to be that he is anti-colonialism; THAT's the worst he could come up with- with his obvious hatred for this guy-??- that he's anti-colonialism-??- the whole time I'm watching this I'm thinking to myself- and you're problem is-??

DonB-5 Russia issues and antagonism - ignored. Debt - ignored. Taking out serious threats like Iran's nuke program - ignored. Letting Israel stand alone. Funding and helping terrorist "rebels" in the middle east. Using all facets of government to target and attempt to destroy enemies (i.e. conservatives). Tax grabs while the economy is in ruins coupled with bald faced lies about the unemployment rate. Allowing massive illegal immigration - ignoring the problem.Corruption on a scale typically associated with banana republics. Brain washing of our youth (seems Germany did that in the 30s too). Playing the race card any time anyone disagrees with anything this admin does.Massive expansion of federal government. Violations of the constitution (example - the recess appointment issue). Ignoring the judicial system and their right to subpoena people for special hearings (happening right now).How can anyone with a brain not see the truth here?

Edgar Allan Pooh . . . is narrated by some little-known guy who claims at one point to be the president of an unnamed college, and who brags about making his living by recycling, repackaging, and "re-enacting" President Barack Obama's ideas. Yet the "facts" rehashed here come almost entirely from Obama's copyrighted books, and shed little if any new light on the purported subject of 2016: OBAMA'S AMER1CA. The co-writer\co-director\narrator's textbook case of megalomania impels him to stretch for a personal counterpoint to make Obama a mirror image of himself (that is, whatever Obama says, he himself believes backwards and upside down). The same year that this lazy Obama "puff piece" came out--2012--another much less ballyhooed documentary entitled THE ACT OF KILLING connected the dots back to Barry, Jr.'s formative years. This incident is so super-secret that 37 of KILLING's crew are listed in its credits as "Anonymous," in the hope that they would not get blown to bits by a Hellfire Missile drone strike as was that American kid in Yemen recently. What the 2016 people fail or fear to mention is that Obama's step-dad Lolo was the equivalent of a German S.S. officer during the Indonesian Genocide of the late 1960s, largely carried out by that country's version of the Boy Scouts (that is, child soldiers). Obama's mom had to hustle Barry, Jr. back to Hawaii at age 10 because the precocious boy had . . . well, watch THE ACT OF KILLING for yourself.