Thread: ‎2016: Obama's America

"2016: Obama's America" is worth every penny to see. It is insightful, informative, and should be seen by every voter, regardless of whether you align with the left, right, or middle of the road.

The producer Dinesh D'Souza, who has a remarkably similar background as Barack Obama, takes the viewer on a fact-driven journey through all of Obama's roots and carefully shows you all that the media did not or would not reveal in 2008.

This is not a hit-piece on Obama but rather an unbiased perspective based on chronological events of our President's past.

Box Office Report: Anti-Obama Doc Beats New Films With $6.3 Mil on Eve of GOP Convention
The Hollywood Reporter – 10 hours ago

Galvanizing conservatives Dinesh D’Souza and John Sullivan’s documentary 2016: Obama's America grossed a stellar $6.3 million as it expanded nationwide over the weekend, beating a trio of three new films.

The anti-Barack Obama film, opening last month in only a few theaters, now boasts a domestic cume of $9.2 million, the top gross of the year for a documentary (excluding nature films). Bully was the previous crownholder with $3.5 million.

Among other records, Obama's America is now the top conservative documentary of all time, beating out Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ($7.7 million).

Obama's America -- promoted on talk radio and distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures -- timed its nationwide expansion to the Republican National Convention, which gets underway this week in Tampa, Fla.

Otherwise, it was a dismal weekend for new offerings. Holdovers dominated the box office chart, led by Lionsgate and Millennium Films' The Expendables, which grossed $13.5 million in its second weekend for a 10-day domestic cume of $52.3 million.

Sony's new Joseph Gordon-Levitt action thriller Premium Rush came in No. 8, opening to a muted $6.3 million. The film cost just north of $30 million to produce and is directed by noted screenwriter David Koepp, who co-wrote the script with John Kamps.

Premium Rush centers on a New York City bicycle messenger (Gordon-Levitt) who is pursued throughout the city by a dirty cop (Michael Shannon) who wants an envelope the messenger has. Gavin Palone produced.

New offbeat indie comedy Hit & Run placed No. 10 for the weekend, grossing a disappointing $4.7 million for a five-day opening of $5.9 million.

Hit & Run, from Open Road Films, stars Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, Bradley Cooper and Tom Arnold and is a romantic action comedy about a former getaway driver who emerges from witness protection to help his girlfriend get to California. It was produced for less than $2 million, excluding a nationwide marketing spend.

Dark Castle's supernatural thriller The Apparition, which Warner Bros. is distributing, couldn't crack the top 10 in its debut, grossing $2.3 million to come in No. 12. Directed by Todd Lincoln, the film stars Twilight's Ashley Green.

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/box-off...161221160.html

comments

The story conveniently left out that the film also only is showing in just 1/3 of the number of theaters that the least of two top three grossing films is showing. So, that's pretty impressive.

..

Look Bush had his issues and so does Obama. If democrats want to put a guy in that hasn't enacted anything positive in the last 4 years then I guess I vote republican. Obama had his try. Democrats give us someone better

..

What does an Expendables clip have to do with the title of this article?

..

I want to hear more about this documentary, and, WHY is it SOOO popular? Something is "going on" as insinuated by the article, but there's no beef, no reasons why this is so popular. WITH A TRAILER FROM THE EXPANDABLES 2???? How does it makes sense YAHOO?

..

Typical yahoo journalism, they bring you in with a headline, then don't give any pertinent details about the film.

..

there is no such thing as journalism any more its been replaced with opinionism !!!!!!!!!!

..

I saw the movie. It is NOT anti-Obama. In fact, D'Souza was very careful to not use any personal attacks whatsoever. It is simply a documentary that reveals Obama's governing philosophy. He presents facts to support his theory and leaves the conclusion to the viewer -- unlike the propaganda that we often see in politics today.

..

There are no theater listings for 2016 in the LA Times. They claim there was a computer glitch, but I think we all know what’s really going on. And the mainstream media wonders why ad revenues and subscriptions are declining ?

Here's the theater listings... http://www.2016themovie.com/theaters/

P.S. I have not heard of this film until today......

Dinesh D’Souza’s Documentary “2016: Obama’s America”

I’m not much of a movie-goer but I did feel compelled to go see 2016, especially because it is a documentary on Barack Obama’s life and the major influences on him. Now I consider myself a pretty knowledgeable guy when it comes to politics, and about Obama in particular. But there were several things in this movie that I did not know. You need to see it.

Without giving anything away, I would just say that this film should set off alarm bells, even among some liberals. I suspect that more than a few liberals will come away from the movie and conclude: Wait, that’s NOT what I signed up for!

Unfortunately, not many liberals will see this well-documented film about Obama’s life and major influences because they think it’s just a hit-piece. But this movie is not what you think it will be. I would urge both liberals and conservatives to see this movie before the election.

Wishing you a Happy Labor Day weekend,
Gary D. Halbert

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blog...dle-class.aspx

AP Undoes Its Own 'Fact Check' on D'Souza's '2016: Obama's America'
by Joel B. Pollak28 Aug 2012

The Associated Press has attempted to "fact check" Dinesh D'Souza's astonishingly successful documentary, 2016: Obama's America--and undermines its own criticism by engaging in a blatantly opinionated assault. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-not-plausible

D'Souza's thesis is that President Barack Obama is deeply influenced by the anti-colonial views of his father, Barack H. Obama, Sr. I happen to think that D'Souza's argument is, at best, a partial explanation of Obama's views. The term "anti-colonial" is a good first pass at Obama's foreign policy, which often neglects traditional American allies in favor of rapprochement with hostile regimes. However, Obama's focus is domestic policy, and his preference for a weakened America on the world stage grows from his desire to see the U.S. adopt the redistributionist policies of other nations. He is focused inward, not outward. And, as the AP's Beth Fouhy points out that D'Souza's evidence is "a logical stretch at best," given that Obama II had little contact with his father.

So far, so good for Fouhy and the AP--but when the "fact check" takes on specific claims in D'Souza's film, it leaves facts behind and offers nothing but opposing opinions, revealing the true bias behind the AP's analysis.

Here are Fouhy's "corrections" to factual claims in 2016: Obama's America:

Fouhy: D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.

So? The Obama debts dwarf the "explosion" under George W. Bush, and it was not necessary that the financial crisis be followed by the kind of deficit spending the Obama administration undertook. Obama himself came to office promising a mere $50 billion in stimulus spending; he ended up spending nearly $900 billion. Fouhy's "correction" here is actually just an argument against D'Souza's opinion, not the facts he invokes to support it.

Fouhy: D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.

These two facts are not contradictory. In fact, one of the weirdest examples of jihadist sympathy was Osama bin Laden's burial at sea in a sham Islamic ceremony. The drone strikes, too, are so prevalent in Obama's policy towards terror partly because he refuses to detain jihadists at Guantanamo Bay, in a self-defeating gesture towards radical sympathies in the Islamic world. Obama has always used his focus on bin Laden as a balance to, and cover for, his willful retreat in the face of the jihadist threat in Iraq and now Afghanistan.

Fouhy: D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. 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.

There is no other way to interpret the Obama administration's shameful abandonment of our British allies than to conclude that President Obama believes there is merit in the Argentinian claim on the Falklands--a claim last pursued by a fascist, human-rights-abusing dictatorship through unprovoked aggression and war.

Fouhy: D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.

Not only has the Obama administration dragged its feet on applying new sanctions to Iran, but it has actively flouted current U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iranian nuclear enrichment in order to find some kind of face-saving grand bargain with the Iranian theocracy. It also missed a golden opportunity to topple the regime by supporting pro-democracy protests in 2009--which could have removed the nuclear threat peacefully.

Fouhy: D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.

This is an amusing error by Fouhy, and without returning to the White House's embarrassing tangle with Charles Krauthammer on this issue earlier this summer, it suffices to point out that the British offered to extend the loan and the Obama adminsitration declined to accept. Here Fouhy's own facts need to be checked. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...Churchill-Bust

Fouhy and the AP might have had a point if they had simply objected to D'Souza's overall thesis, which is very much a matter of opinion and speculation. But they simply could not resist the temptation to substitute their opinions for his facts--and have thus undone their own "fact check," as well as any pretense at objectivity.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...a-s-Obama-2016

comments

how much facts can a fact-checker check if a fact-checker could check facts?

..

Clearly, a fact-checker can check no amount of facts since the fact-checker didn't check facts.

..

So, we didn't really expect anything even remotely even-handed or balanced from America's Pravda, did we? Really, really?

..

It has no credibility, outside the clique whom it serves.

..

Always wondered just who they were supposed to be "associated" with. You look to have provided a more than plausible answer.

..

They change it only AFTER everyone has read their LIES! Sickening. Pay attention to this tactic. It is happening more and more now!

..





Proof of Media bias- watch video before CBS pulls it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Dinesh D'Souza: Fact-Checking AP's Fact Check on '2016: Obama's America'
Published: September 03, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

A few days ago the Associated Press ran a news article by reporter Beth Fouhy charging that my film "2016" contains serious factual errors. Remarkably, for a news article, the reporter didn't bother to check with me or anyone else at the film. This was my first indication that something was deeply wrong with this article.

Let's look at the specific charges raised in the AP article.

First, it claims that I "never mention the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George Bush." This is simply false. The film quotes former Comptroller David Walker saying that the national debt exploded under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The film shows

a clear graphic depicting the actual debt increase under both presidents, so that the viewer can compare them. The simple truth is that Bush's largest annual deficits were below $500 billion and Obama's lowest annual deficit was above $1 trillion. So Bush was a big spender and Obama an even bigger spender. This is made crystal-clear in the film.

Second, the AP article quotes me as saying that Obama has "done nothing" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. This is a deliberate misquotation. Actually in the film I recall a prediction that I made in my book The Roots of Obama's Rage. The prediction was that Obama "would do nothing significant" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. By omitting the word "significant," AP can then claim that Obama has taken some measures, including some modest sanctions, against Iran. But my point is that these measures are so weak that they cannot be expected to--and in fact haven't--deterred the mullahs in the slightest.

Third, the AP article "refutes" my contention that Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis fighting against America by pointing out that Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden and has also approved drone strikes against Al Qaeda. My argument was based on the premise that Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and to extend constitutional rights to jihadis captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. I explained Obama's peculiar position by saying that he views these jihadis as freedom fighters seeking to liberate their countries from American occupation. As Obama has made clear, he views Bin Laden and Al Qaeda quite differently, as international gangsters who go abroad to kill innocent people. So my argument about Obama is quite consistent with his actions against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Fourth, the AP article claims that I misrepresent Obama's position on the Falkland Islands. Not true. The British position on the Falklands is that the islands belong to the U.K. The Argentine position supports negotiations over the control of the islands. Despite the special relationship between America and Britain, and despite the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have supported the British position, the Obama administration has switched sides and now supports the Argentine position calling for negotiations. This is reflected in resolutions passed by the Organization of American States and backed by the United States.

Finally the AP article disputes the film's claim that Obama removed a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office. The AP article takes its cue from a White House blog that initially attempted to deny this and obfuscate the issue by claiming possession of a second bust. This second bust was supposedly under repair but has now mysteriously surfaced. But none of this changes the fact that one of Obama's first actions as president was to return the Oval Office bust of Churchill. Obama didn't just want to relocate it, he wanted it given back to Britain. That bust now sits in the home of the British ambassador. The film explains Obama's hostility to Churchill by noting that he was a champion of colonialism and ordered a crackdown on an anti-colonial rebellion in Kenya in which Obama's father and grandfather were both detained. So we know what Obama did, and we know why he might have wanted to do it. As for the original White House blog, the White House has admitted its inaccuracy and apologized.

So what's going on here? Certainly it's possible to debate the issues raised in the film. If AP wanted to commission a review or Oped article, that would be fine. But instead the news agency has published a crude and inaccurate attack masquerading as a news story. Evidently this fact-checking article required its own fact-checker. Perhaps AP can now regain some credibility in this matter by publishing an apology.

Dinesh D'Souza, narrator and co-director of the film "2016," is author of the bestselling new book "Obama's America."

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/blog-p...-america-54491

'2016: Obama's America': What the Surprise Hit Says About the Election
Published: August 26, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

The surprising box office success this weekend of "2016: Obama's America," a documentary challenging the president's record, is propelling its producers to further widen its reach on the eve of the Republican National Convention. “We’re going to go where the demand takes us,” Mark Joseph, who is leading marketing for the film, told TheWrap Sunday, “and right now, there is a lot of demand.”

With its catchphrase -- "Love Him. Hate Him. You Don't Know Him" -- the right-wing "2016" burned past the per-screen average of the studio sequel "Expendables 2" and came within a hair's breadth of newcomer "Premium Rush" in total ticket sales.

How did that happen?

Based on conservative author Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," the documentary purports to show what the nation will be like should President Obama be re-elected, and includes an interview with the president's half brother, George Obama.

With the Republican convention convening this week in Tampa, independent distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures on Friday expanded it from 169 to 1,091 screens. It took in $6.2 million over the three days for a per-screen average of $5,940 -- the best of any film in wide release, including the No. 1 film, "Expendables 2."

Juiced by advance sales, "2016" on Friday raced past the projections of industry analysts, most of whom predicted a $4 million weekend.

D'Souza co-directed with John Sullivan; Produced for a reported $2.1 million, "2016" has made $9.3 million since its release seven weeks ago, and has surpassed "Bully" as the year's top-earning documentary.

The film played most strongly in a range of states that were varied geographically as well in terms of red and blue. They included New York, Washington, Lousiana and Kansas, according to Joseph, who headed the marketing campaign along with Sullivan.

He discounted reports that there were religious groups shepherding moviegoers to the film and that othes were bused in. He said the only effort organized by his company was a Los Angeles call center designed to get the word out.

The Rocky Mountain team will huddle Monday and set a course for future expansion, but Joseph left no doubt they intended to be aggressive and put the movie into even more theaters.

So how indicative is the film's popularity of the country's feeling about Obama? It may be more of a box-office coup than a bellwether for the nation’s political pulse, according to left-leaning documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald ("Koch Brothers Exposed," "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War") of Brave New Films.

Greenwald feels the success of the film is mostly a matter of preaching to the choir. “I think that documentaries have an impact and the potential to affect people’s thinking and feeling,” he told TheWrap on Sunday. “But when you put a movie in a theater and ask people to pay between $7 and $12, you are getting a very small, select group of people who already have an opinion. “Think about it,” he said. “Who is going to pay money to go see a film that says Obama is really terrible?“

One of the film’s producers is Gerald Molen, who has worked on Steven Spielberg films, including “Schindler’s List” and “Jurassic Park.” He disagreed strongly with the idea that people who were backers of Obama would steer clear of the film. “Why? It isn’t designed to bash Obama, it’s more about information,” he told TheWrap on Sunday. “My dream is that people will go into it with an open mind. I want people to learn to care, to learn to understand about whoever is going to lead this country.”

Greenwald acknowledged that documentaries in general can have value in terms of rallying the base, and “2016” appears to have done that.

Rush Limbaugh, for example, has been a vocal proponent of the film. “People are seeing it that have never, ever, been exposed to this kind of discussion or criticism or explanation for who Obama is,” Limbaugh said on his radio program last week, urging his listeners to buy a ticket (he also urged them to go see “Expendables 2.”)

And Glenn Beck, in an interview with D'Souza, called the documentary an “election-season bomb.” He compared it Michael Moore's 2004 film "Farenheit 9/11," which was highly critical of President George W. Bush. That film is the highest-grossing political documentary of all time, and took in $119 million domestically and $222 million at the worldwide box office.

But the differences between "2016: Obama's America" and "Farenheit 9/11" go beyond their box office grosses, Greenwald told TheWrap. "'Fahrenheit 9/11' was the exception because it didn’t speak to electoral politics, it spoke about the [Iraq] war," he said.

And it’s worth noting that despite the big box-office numbers posted by “Farenheit,” Bush still won the election.

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/articl...n-impact-53501

comments

To The Wrap: Please stop covertly editorializing in your headlines and articles, for example, your term, "Obama bashing". Oh. I get it. Anything in disagreement with liberals is bashing? Someone can't disagree with your political viewpoint without being considered "bashing"? You need to keep your personal political persuasions out of what's supposed to be an impartial entertainment industry newsreporting organization. The more you do this, the more you lose respect in the entertainment community. Respect for accuracy in reporting is what you want, right? Well, that applies to any film, even a political one, and even if it disagrees with your personal viewpoints.

..

Three points: 1.) this is the second article on the film where The Wrap refers to the movie as a 'right wing' documentary. I did not recall hearing any Hollywood publication or The Wrap referring to any of Michael Moore's comedies as a 'left wing' film. 2.) Will the Oscars ignore the film even if it maintains it's status as the #1 documentary of 2012. And, finally, 3.) will Mark Joseph find an open time to show the film at the RNC Convention in Tampa, or--at least--rent screens across America--including the 'blue' cities of Detroit, Cleveland, Chaicago, and eslewhere, and have FREE screenings for the uninformed and/or undecided voters?

...

It is really so amusing that The Wrap and other liberal media outlets are so shocked that the film is a success. If all you know are west side of L.A./upper east side of New York/Georgetown liberals, of course it's a shock. USA Today was so shocked--and obviously distressed-- that it completely omitted the film from its weekend results story on the front page of its entertainment section. Only 20% of Americans self-identify as liberals but that number rises to 80% or so in the so-called mainstream media--hence, their befuddlement at people who have the "audacity" to see President Obama differently than they do

May 11, 2012
Democrats inadvertenly open the door to Obama's past
Sara Goss

In the recent kerfluffle over gay marriage two things have happened: 1) Barack Obama officially declared his support and 2) the Washington Post published a hit piece on Mitt Romney implying that he engaged in gay bashing while in high school (factually incorrect but I digress). It's obvious to anyone with a brain that these two events were coordinated. What's not obvious is the door that has been opened by them.

The Democrats, in their zeal to destroy Mitt Romney by any means necessary have opened the door to the candidates' histories. There's only one problem. Barack Obama, as his first official act as President, sealed his records.

The media is investigating every single pimple that Mitt Romney ever had simply because they can; because the records are available for all to see. Where are Barack Obama's records? Where are the high school friends of Barack Obama? Where are the college friends of Barack Obama? Where are the records? So, every single time the media decides that Mitt Romney's high school and college years are fair game, he needs to fire back that Barack Obama's high school and college years are also fair game. But, oops, we can't look at them because they have been hidden. And then ask "Why?"

Most people don't know about BO's records being sealed. They might think differently about him if they did. Because, as everyone knows, the only people that hide things are the ones that have something to hide.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...#ixzz29eNSZD99

comments

Focus folks. The issue isn't what 0bama did or didn't do (although I suspect reality is egregious) it's that he won't talk about any of his history. In a time when the Federal Government wants more and more information about every citizen, the fact that the President won't discuss his, in fact has banned any discussion, is the real issue.

...

One of the most extraordinary facts of our time is how all quarters seem to be covering up the past of Barack Obama: the press, Congress, Democrats and Republicans. Historians will certainly address this phenomenon.

Another new "cover up" of Obama's past records was reported on May 7, 2012 in the Washington Times. The Director of the Selective Service System, Lawrence Romo, who was appointed by Obama in 2009 (and who answers to him) put in place a new ruling, just days after Sheriff Arpaio began an investigation of Barack Obama's Selective Service registration form. The announcement stated that a NEW ruling, based on privacy rules, could allow the Selective Service System to DESTROY EXISTING MICROFILM RECORDS.

In addition to this shocking announcement, Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse has claimed to have substantial evidence that Barack Obama's 1980 Selective Service registration form is fraudulent.

...

I would donate money to the person/persons who can come up with some evidence/answers, regarding his college applications and transcripts/records. I'm sure a lot of people would. I still have suspicions about the death of Andrew Breitbart. The medical examiner on his case died a month later. It's very suspicious, creepy.

...

Perhaps the surmise that he worked for the CIA and they are suppressing all this stuff gains credibility? Who could cow the entire Congress? As a wise man once said, when you've eliminated the impossible ...

...

I agree except for one minor comment: Obama was never adopted by his Japanese Muslim step-father - Lolo Soetoro. It is true that Obama was enrolled as a Muslim in the Madrasah in Indonesia where he read the Qur'an and the writings of Karl Marx. There are references to Obama being called the "Son of Marx". He also was a student of Socialism and accounts - IMO - for his agenda now as POTUS to implement Euro-style Socialism here. His adoption of the Nazi Socialist word "Forward" as his campaign slogan may be an additional hint.

...

He was almost certainly adopted by Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia. There is an enrollment card for St. Francis of Assisi school in Indonesia which lists Lolo Soetoro as his legal father, his religion as Islam and his citizenship as Indonesian. At the time Indonesia was a military dictatorship which did not allow non-citizens to attend public school. The school would have had some reason to believe that the boy was legally entitled to an Indonesian-financed public education. This is also what his half-sister and the rest of his living family members state.

...

Name one benign sane reason why a newly elected President who ran on transparency (among other lies) sealed his own records as one of his first official acts. Inform the public that he did this (most do not know) and ask repeatedly: "Why? What did you not want the American public to see?"

Hope Romney has a team of pitbulls to counter the team orchestrating Obama's smear operation with the media's collusion, going over Romney's life with a fine tooth comb the way they Palinized Palin while Obama danced around without a glove laid on him (McCain: Obama would make a good President). What worked really well is countering each mudball with a smash back, like: "Dog on a roof? well, your guy ate dogs!" Unless the Dems are forcibly fed their own medicine and made to choke on it, they will continue with their character assassination to avoid discussion of Obama's dismal record.

Now Available on DVD

They are having problems with these at our local WalMart .. a whole display disapeared before being put on shelves ... not "sold"- just gone - Stolen ?? Trashed ??