Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary, 2016: Obama’s America, is fast and loose, if not eye-rolling disingenuous in the way it plays with the facts. An editorial (at most) more than a documentary that attempts to nearly defame and clearly launch a character attack under an almost laughable intellectual pretense. It makes the argument that President Obama is guided to hatred towards America by the ghost presence of the father that abandoned him. An assertion that comes off like a bad Hamlet rip-off or a tacky Freud analysis. As far as supporting facts, D’Souza’s is currently in a push back with many news organizations, including the Associated Press, which called “2016: Obama’s America,” “a crude and inaccurate attack masquerading as a news story.”

Clearly in interviews with D’Souza, news organizations like NPR and progressives like Bill Maher have been frustrated if not angered by the moviemaker’s claims.

Good.

Now that we have a right-leaning example, perhaps some liberals and news organizations will understand why the right was offended at many of Michael Moore’s movies. And why these types of movies, Moore’s, D’Souza’s, should never be called documentaries. They are political pornography. Pieces meant to politically titillate than inform or provide true insight.

Michael Moore’s success of Fahrenheit 9/11, the most money-making “documentary” in American history, ushered the age of the big screen political porn in the form of a “rantumentary.” A documentary that’s more of a live-action editorial cartoon. Like a cartoon it employs the use of exaggeration to tease out political messages to the audience. Often used as a way of emotionally stirring up of desired feelings on a topic. For example Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 took some factual aspects of the Bush Administration, the “chad” election and decision for George Bush, his corporate backers and references to the president cowboy image to weave a bigger and unproven claim. A claim that corporations, shady foreign backers, big oil Republicans in government and a cowboy president all conspired to make the war in Iraq happen. And, with a wink, possibly 9/11.

That woven-in emotionally felt but not proven conspiracy is part of the design of political porn. Where anger and political conspiracy is what sex and erotic fantasy is to real porn. To get viewers angry, and politically agitated and orgasm with anger at what they’ve just seen. The political “release” is the money shot. The argument conversion.

D’Souza’s movie, like Moore’s, uses the same tactic. He takes the words used in Obama’s book Dreams of my Father and uses barely-tethered interpretations and selective edits and interviews to make viewers afraid and angry about an anti-colonial hatred based policy powering Obama’s plan for governing America with no documentation to support it.

And for some viewers of his movie. That’s proof enough.

The recent success of D’Souza’s movie after Moore’s will only ensure there will be more. And people will go to politically “wack off” at the movie theater.  The good news for people like Pee-Wee Herman and Fred Willard-you can’t get arrested.