He claims modern leftists are “telling a new story”, however, contradicting traditional veneration for America in order to “convince a nation to author its own destruction” and “unmake the America that is here now.” He then challenges several "indictments" made against the country and American exceptionalism, including sociology professor and activist Michael Eric Dyson's claim that “Thievery" was the “critical element” for “American empire” and historian and activist Ward Churchill's assertion that the US is the world's new evil empire, and says that 1960s Chicago radical Saul Alinsky, historian Howard Zinn, and others have promoted guilt and resentment regarding wealth inequality that has helped shape the political careers of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

He says the $700 used to purchase colonial Manhattan from American Indians could buy many desolate parcels globally today, but that individual industry has made New York real estate worth billions.

He cites examples like Arab historian Ibn Khaldun preferring looting to trade and says that merchants form Hinduism's second-lowest social caste.

Professor and Reconquista advocate Charles Truxillo is contrasted with an interviewed Tejano who says he has no desire to return to a poverty and crime ridden Mexico and instead wants to live the "American Dream".

According to the film, the Declaration of Independence essentially says “liberty is the solution to injustice,” a “promissory note” cashed throughout history by Americans such as Martin Luther King Jr. C.J.

Walker, the black entrepreneur and daughter of slaves who is regarded as America's first self-made female millionaire, is cited as an example of the type of individual success story the American system allows that is ignored by historians like Zinn because it undermines their leftist narrative.

[8] The filmmakers chose to feature clips of celebrities including Woody Harrelson, Matt Damon, and Bono to illustrate the documentary's points to audiences who may be unfamiliar with historical figures like Frederick Douglass.

[14] In the following July, D'Souza and fellow filmmaker Bruce Schooley traveled to the state of Texas to promote the documentary on radio and television programs owned by Glenn Beck.

[21][22] In August 2014, the nonprofit organization Movie to Movement invited President Barack Obama and members of the United States Congress to a free screening of America.

"[32] Joe Leydon, reviewing for Variety, called America "a slick, sprawling celebration of American exceptionalism that could, much like its predecessor, make a bundle by rigorously reinforcing the deeply held beliefs and darkest suspicions of its target audience".

[7] The Hollywood Reporter's Stephen Farber said D'Souza overstated "anti-American tenets ostensibly running rampant in our society" and that his responses to critiques of America "aren't very convincing".

[35] TheWrap's James Rocchi said the documentary had straw man arguments favoring D'Souza and had anecdotes in place of data, "The film is intellectually and factually spurious, in addition to being... deeply self-serving."

Club's David Ehrlich also said America had straw man arguments, "[D'Souza and Sullivan are] hellbent on pacifying the American guilt they believe was responsible for Obama's election, desperately attempting to assuage the national conscience about the evils of colonialism, capitalism, and racism."

"[39] Rob Humanick, reviewing for Slant Magazine, said "The cynically opportunistic America descends into another one-note attack on the sitting president, beholden to the same plethora of taboos, half-truths, and outright lies traded en masse by mainstream conservatism for the last seven years."

Humanick called the documentary "a carefully cultivated collection of false equivalencies, hyperbolic pronouncements, blatant recontextualizations of others' arguments, and shameless appeals to patriotism, all within a vaguely fear-mongering framework of demonizing the other".

Filled with soaring guitars, pointless blacksmith montages and recreations with porn-level production values... it's all fist-pumping anti-thought, consisting of baseless revisionist history and idle contrarianism.

"[42] U.S. News & World Report's Nicole Hemmer said D'Souza's documentary was intended for conservatives and conveyed the premise that leftist radicals portrayed American history as shameful to win political power.

[3] Simon van Zuylen-Wood, writing in National Journal, said the film treated "the radical-left worldview of marginal figures like Bill Ayers" as representative of American liberalism and that it engaged "in a selective historiography" like minimizing slavery in the United States by highlighting the existence of black slaveholders.

Zuylen-Wood also compared D'Souza to liberal filmmaker Michael Moore in how both use their roots to convey their messages and how they are both central characters in their documentaries, introducing "one ideological pathology after another" to moviegoers.

[15] Mark Stricherz of The Atlantic said that D'Souza message suffered "the intellectual pitfalls of ignoring the critics", finding that he did not contextualize Obama's phrase "You didn't build that" in America.

"[43] John Tamny of Forbes said, "D’Souza's America is noble in its effort to discredit myths about the U.S. as a genocidal, thieving, racist, capitalistically rapacious nation, but really, who believes this?

It's popular in the victimized portion of the conservative movement to assert that those who love the U.S., freedom, and the prosperity it delivers do so in silence out of fear that the majority haters will persecute them for having those views, but let's be serious.

"[44] John Fund of National Review said the documentary was a response to U.S. progressive critique of the country: "D'Souza's film and his accompanying book are a no-holds-barred assault on the contemporary doctrine of political correctness."

[49] In the documentary, D'Souza counters four "indictments" of the United States made by historian Howard Zinn: the treatment of Native Americans, slavery, the transfer of Mexico, and its colonialist behavior.

John Fund in National Review said, "Consider his treatment of those subjects as his direct rebuttal to... Zinn, whose textbooks treating America's history as one of ceaseless oppression dominate many American high schools and colleges.

"[4] National Review's Jay Nordlinger said "I myself depart a bit from D'Souza on Alinskyism: I regard Obama and Hillary as mainstream Democrats, no different from Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and the rest of the gang.

"[52] Toward the end of the film, D'Souza shows himself on camera wearing handcuffs, referring to his criminal conviction for violating election campaign finance laws.

Joseph Amodeo, a political scientist and policy researcher for The Huffington Post, said the scene "appears to be an apology to his 'fans' and an awkward show of penance for recent improprieties on his part.

"[53] Michael Berkowitz, also writing for The Huffington Post, said of the scene, "[D'Souza's] suggestion that his own criminal conviction and his cheating on his wife are the result of political targeting are embarrassing and without support.

The head of Collier County's local Libertarian Party, Jared Grifoni, did not contest the content but the attempted requirement, "We should be working to get rid of political and social engineering in schools regardless which side of the aisle is pushing it.