Michael Moore's 2004’s documentary, "Fahrenheit 911," is a critically acclaimed investigation about former President George W. Bush and how his administration handled the War on Terror. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit group that pushes for government transparency, made Hillary: The Movie in 2008, which talks about corruption in the Clinton family. 2016: Obama’s America, put out in 2012 by conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, presents D’Souza’s theory on how President Obama’s anti-colonialist upbringing influences the decisions he makes in office now. The basic premise of D'Souza’s film 2016: Obama’s America is that, whether you “love him, or hate him, you don't know” that President Barack Obama is actually a covert anti-colonialist, and, among a few other arguments, this is what he mainly aims to prove throughout his film. D'Souza begins by asserting that Obama’s political beliefs and ideologies are profoundly influenced by his anti-colonialist father, Barack H. Obama Sr., and concludes his argument saying Obama’s efforts to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the United States, while countries like North Korea refuse to do so, which “levels the nuclear playing field.” Ultimately, D'Souza is arguing that Obama’s global relations policies makes “Obama’s Dream” in line, not with “The American Dream,” but with “The anti-colonial dream: to end American nuclear superiority, and restore a world where many countries have equal power.” D'Souza raises some interesting points – and has clearly done some exhaustive research – and though I don't completely disagree with what he’s getting at, I think he approaches his argument in a way that critically weakens the overall effect of his film. First, the inclusion and presentational manner of the trifling comparisons between Obama and himself early in the film shows that, since they were the same age, went to Ivy League colleges, and both had “a sort of, mixed-race background,” D'Souza inaccurately assumes that he has some special insight into the thought process and ideological foundations of President Obama. I also believe that the basis of his entire argument is founded on the unproven assumption that Obama embraced the anti-colonial beliefs of his father’s and actually adopted them into his political views, and D'Souza trims the argument’s loose ends by covertly omitting facts as he goes. There is no question that Obama Sr. held adamant anti-colonial and socialistic views, nor that he surrounded himself with some of the more notorious names in anti-colonial, socialist, Marxist, and communist circles. The entire argument in D’Souza’s film – that President Obama is harmful to America because he holds anti-colonialist values – is only possible given that he is correct in one big assumption he holds throughout the film: that President Obama is genuinely an anti-colonialist. This questionable idea is centered on one even less substantiated assumption: since his father was such a strong anti-colonialist, President Obama must have adopted some of those views into his own personal agenda. D’Souza interviews a number of people related to the Obama family and people who study the Obama family, and he finds many loose connections between President Obama and a number of important members of various groups with anti-colonial and communist interests. For example, at one point D’Souza interviews one of Obama’s father’s best friends Philip Ochieng, who talks about how Obama Sr. and himself were “totally anti-colonial” and says things like Israel is the “Trojan horse” of the Middle East, but he never ties those views to President Obama. While his theory is good, mentioning that Obama was emotionally influenced by what (he thought) he knew about his absentee father and discusses Obama Sr. and his friends’ extreme anti-colonial and communistic views, D’Souza fails to provide any real evidence that Obama ever truly embraced or adopted any anti-colonialistic ideologies of his father’s into the way he runs America today. Throughout the rest of the film, there are a number of additional pieces of data that all tie in to D’Souza’s argument seemingly unquestionably until the omitted facts are revealed. At one point in the film, D’Souza accuses Obama for removing a bronze bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office, suggestin