webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

d'souza dinesh 2 bak

see 2000 mules

xian

see voter fraud 2 harvest

see true the vote

7 22 i missed (funny?) ref CNP?

---

sleazeball cospir prijection rubber

update tim miller bulwark mike lee, dsouza....

AN 6 25 STATES N

Just hours after Minnesotans learned that Democratic House leader Melissa Hortman had been assassinated, right-wing influencer Collin Rugg, who has 1.8 million followers on X, posted a “report” that hinted that she’d been killed because of a recent vote on ending undocumented adults’ ability to enroll in MinnesotaCare, a subsidized health insurance for the working poor.

Mike Cernovich, another right-wing influencer who has 1.4 million followers on X, took Rugg’s post and amped it up, but in the “just asking questions” style of many conspiracy theories:

*“Did Tim Walz have her executed to send a message?”

They were deeply ignorant about the MinnesotaCare issue.

---

---

rww 1123

Three AZ GOP Leaders Appear on Bigoted Christian Nationalist ‘CrossTalk’ Program

By Kyle Mantyla | November 7, 2023

Three Arizona Republican officials appeared on a far-right program hosted by racist Christian nationalists on Monday night.

In Florida for the premier of right-wing propagandist Dinesh D’Souza’s latest film, which took place at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property last week, Arizona state Sens. Wendy Rogers and Justine Wadsack and Maricopa County Republican Party Chairman Craig Berland made time to appear on the “CrossTalk” program, hosted by racist conspiracy theorists Edward Szall and Lauren Witzke.

Witzke, a white nationalist who served as the Delaware Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in 2020, and Szall met when both worked for antisemitic conspiracy theorist Rick Wiles at his “TruNews” network. After both were fired, they teamed up launch CrossTalk, which they subsequently used as a platform from which to spread bigotry, conspiracy theories, and Christian nationalism.

many twts

In recent years, Sen. Rogers has developed close ties to Witzke and others in the far-right America First movement, which is headed by racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, homophobicChristian nationalist Nick Fuentes. In fact, Rogers delivered a prerecorded message at a Fuentes event in 2022 in which she heaped praise on Fuentes and his racist, antisemitic followers, declaring them to be “the future” of the far-right movement that will save the nation.

Inside the Mar-a-Lago Premiere of 'Police State': 'We're Already in One'

Trump wasn't at Mar-a-Lago for a red-carpet movie premiere Wednesday night, but his presence was felt — and celebrated — by around 500 conservative influencers, media personalities and politicians who partied at the former president's Florida home without him.

The premiere was for Dinesh D'Souza's documentary, Police State, about allegedly normal, harmless Americans who say they've been arrested, harassed or censored by various branches of the U.S. government.

While not there, Trump posted online his support for the film and midway through the party D'Souza read the message aloud to guests. The movie exposes "the witch hunt that the deep state has against me. And the police state is coming for you," Trump wrote.

D'Souza also alluded to a civil trial where Trump is accused of exaggerating the value of his assets, including Mar-a-Lago, which Trump said was worth more than $1 billion while a judge has said it's value is between $18 million-$27 million.

"It's hard to believe this place is worth only $18 million," D'Souza told the assembled in a large hall near the swimming pool.

"Maybe some of us should buy it; sell it for $400 million and use the profits to buy Fox News," he joked to laughter and applause.

:{From left, Dinesh D'Souza speaks alongside Debbie D'Souza and Dan and Paula Bongino at the premiere of "Police State" at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club and estate on November 1, 2023. The film is about allegedly normal, harmless Americans who say they've been arrested, harassed or censored by various branches of the U.S. government.

While progressives typically dismiss D'Souza's work as conspiratorial, a Rasmussen poll in September found that 72 percent of voters are worried that the U.S. is becoming a police state, which the poll described as a tyrannical government that engages in mass surveillance, censorship, ideological indoctrination and targeting of political opponents.

What Americans fail to agree on is from which side of the aisle the threat comes from. D'Souza's film tries to make the case it is mainly from the left, though he does criticize a few Republicans — most notably former President George W. Bush — for their alleged contributions.

Progressives also often discount D'Souza's movies because he pleaded guilty in 2014 to enlisting the help of a straw donor so that he could give more money than was allowed by law to a Senate candidate.

After D'Souza served his sentence, Trump pardoned him, and D'Souza briefly revisits the episode in his movie.

While Rotten Tomatoes gives the movie an 82 percent audience score at time of publishing, a critic at the progressive outlet, Mother Jones, calls it the work of "far-right fringe characters" and laments: "None of the alleged victims in Police State are innocent people like George Floyd or Breonna Taylor, who literally died at the hands of overzealous cops."

But at Wednesday's premiere, the movie earned a standing ovation.

Off to the sidelines, D'Souza told Newsweek that he has run into several odd problems in the distribution and marketing of the film, which he says has thus far played for two nights at mostly sold-out theaters, raking in about $1.5 million.

Most notably, he accused the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Department of the Treasury of "intercepting" a $106,000 payment to Salem Media to purchase ads for the movie.

"We now have to retrieve our funds, and it's going to be a hassle," he said.

Newsweek has reached out to the Treasury Department and will update this story should it respond.

Newsweek reviewed documentation indicating that the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has held up funds D'Souza attempted to wire to Salem for the purpose of advertising.

OFAC's stated mission is to enforce trade sanctions based on national security goals that include terrorist threats, weapons of mass destruction and narcotics traffickers.

"Why would they intercept our domestic wire? They can't seize our money and pretend there is some legitimate government purpose for doing it," D'Souza said.

D'Souza, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan, is the right's most successful producer of conservative documentaries. In 2012, his debut movie, 2016: Obama's America, scored $33 million at the box office, enough to become the second most popular political documentary of all time, after Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.

Partners in the film include YouTube competitor Rumble, which is streaming the movie, and talk-radio host Dan Bongino.

Ahead of the film, Bongino motioned toward Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski and said: "His idea was to create a free speech, free idea platform...Make no mistake — this guy's got a lot of guts."

U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake told Newsweek: "We are living in a police state. It's pretty apparent. Look at January 6 and the two tiers of justice. Our rights are slipping away and more people are waking up to it."

:{Senate candidate Kari Lake attends the "Police State" premiere at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago on November 1, 2023. She says it is "pretty apparent" Americans live in a police state

D'Souza said that authorities who claimed to be saving democracy, upholding the rule of law, fighting misinformation and saving lives with COVID restrictions have abused their power.

A police state is "coming to us in disguise. It's coming to us marching behind the slogans of virtue," he said. "The task of this film is to strip away the facade."

When D'Souza introduced the families of some of those who were arrested during the January 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol, the crowd applauded.

Will Pope, who attended the premiere and the riots, and has been charged with several crimes associated with the latter, told Newsweek: "Nobody there that day was trying to overthrow the government. Most are normal people who don't mean you any harm, and they love America."

Actor Kevin Sorbo, who played TV's Hercules in the 1980s and stars mostly in faith-based films like God's Not Dead nowadays, told Newsweek: "Free speech has been disappearing quickly. That's the truth, but the truth is kryptonite to Hollywood and to Washington, D.C."

:{'Hercules' actor Kevin Sorbo takes a selfie at Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump's estate hosted the premiere of the documentary "Police State" on November 1.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is facing charges in Fulton County, Georgia, that allege he tried to subvert the will of voters in 2020, similar to charges against Trump, told Newsweek that the mainstream media is biased against conservatives.

"The coverage is consistent with the country. A large percentage of it, through Biden, is becoming fascist," he said. "The coverage is despicable, disgraceful, unpatriotic and, at times, supportive of criminal conspiracies, and I include Newsweek."

Fox News personality Leo Terrell, who switched from liberal to conservative in 2016, told Newsweek that Police State is a timely movie for all Americans, but added: "Liberals won't watch it, but they should."

Actor Nick Searcy, who plays a composite FBI character in Police State, was at the January 6 riots and made a documentary about it, dubbed Capitol Punishment. He told Newsweek that he's working on a sequel.

"The suppression of free speech should concern both sides. The intimidation of everyday Americans can happen to anyone," he said.

---

---

footage of elderly blk woman 9legit election worker?) unloading drop box into plastic trash bag used in 2022 last min ads

---

On Newsmax, Dinesh D'Souza criticizes Bernie Sanders: "The ideology is far more important than his Jewish identity" | Media Matters for America

---

anyone can put out a movie anytime they like, but if you put out ads which are trying to sway votes (not just get ppl to buy a ticket, you do not get to do an end-run around FEC regulations?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/coming-soon-campaign-season-anti-hillary-movie-201128120.html

Coming Soon to Campaign Season: The Anti-Hillary Movie

Ted Johnson

March 22, 2016

hiillary Clinton has noted, on the campaign trail and in debates, that “Citizens United was about me.”

Her point is that she grasps campaign finance reform because it was so personal: The famous court decision has its roots in a 2008 documentary called “Hillary, the Movie,” which, to say the least, was not flattering.

Get ready for a new round of anti-Hillary projects, ones that may not instigate another Supreme Court fight, but could generate some box office business.

Late last month, Dinesh D’Souza unveiled histrailer for “Hillary’s America”at the Conservative Political Action Conference, aiming to capitalize on the success of a 2012 documentary, “2016: Obama’s America,” which grossed a hefty $33.4 million at the domestic box office that year. According to Box Office Mojo, that was enough to place it as the No. 2 grossing political documentary of all time, after Michael Moore’s runaway hit “Fahrenheit 9/11.”

Meanwhile, David Bossie, the president of Citizens United who produced “Hillary, the Movie,” says that he is planning a follow-up for this year, with the tentative title “Hillary, the Sequel.”

He says that the movie will “have a host of very interesting material related to her time at the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

He won’t reveal other details, but noted that for the past two years, Citizens United filed 40 Freedom of Information Act requests and a dozen lawsuits against the State Department. Bossie became a familiar name in Washington in the 1990s for his investigations of the Clintons.

D’Souza’s “Hillary’s America” will be no less direct in its target. Clinton is a focus of the project — one shot in the trailer shows her on CNN with the banner, “Clinton: I deleted only personal emails.” Another features a blonde woman looking out the window of the Oval Office.

But she is not the entire focus. The trailer starts with D’Souza asking the question, “Who are these Democrats?” With a mix of news footage and reenactments, it promises to “go behind the curtain and discover the soul of the Democratic Party,” and how the party went from supporting “slavery to enslavement.”

“What if their plan is to steal America?” D’Souza says at the end of the trailer. “Who will stop them now?”

The trailer also features D’Souza’s booking photo after he was indicted and charged in 2014 with making illegal campaign contributions by using “straw donors” to a U.S. Senate campaign. He was sentenced to five years probation, including eight months in a community confinement center in San Diego.

At his sentencing, D’Souza told the judge in the case that he regretted breaking the law, but he has argued in interviews that he was selectively targeted for prosecution. In the trailer for “Hillary’s America,” D’Souza says, “It all began when the Obama administration tried to shut me up — what did I learn?”

“This movie is not just about Hillary. It is about progressivism and the Democratic party,” D’Sousa says. “It is about the Democratic party’s central claim, which is causal justice, looking out for the little guy. What we are saying is that is not true. It is not true then and it is not true now.”

If that gets those on the left crying “Southern strategy” or “Donald Trump,” in the case of a political documentary, provocative is the point, especially this year. Reactions to the YouTube video have run 5-2 positive, but more important may be the number views: more than 900,000.

“Now more than ever, movies like this have a particular resonance and relevance in the marketplace,” says Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at comScore, which conducts box office and media research.

He points to the success of Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11” in the 2004 election cycle, and “2016: Obama’s America” in 2012. The interest is even greater this year.

“This year the rules have really been changed,” he says. “There are so many contentious points of view, and it is a very highly charged political climate. Everyone is talking politics now. It is on everyone’s mind.”

There’s some irony in that other Clinton projects got sidelined well before she even got into the race. After NBC announced a Hillary Clinton miniseries and CNN unveiled plans for a documentary project, the Republican National Committeethreatened to freeze them out of debate sponsorship,arguing that they were going to be “political ads masked as unbiased entertainment.” The director of the CNN documentary said his work would be investigative and fair, but both projects were abandoned.

D’Souza says that they plan to have a premiere in July at a Cleveland theater close to the Republican National Convention, and then to open the next week, with the goal of a wide release. He is in talks with four distributors for the rights. At its peak, “2016: Obama’s America” was in more than 2,000 theaters.

“If you want to be heard politically, if you want your message to reach a wide number of people, this is the time to do it,” D’Souza says. “This year, ordinarily apathetic Americans pay attention to politics.”

The budget for “Hillary’s America,” D’Souza says, is $12.5 million, with initial prints and advertising. The production cost $5 million, double the amount of “2016.” The increase helped pay for more expensive scenes, like reenactments.

He said that it is funded by small- and medium- sized investors, but that they have no affiliation with the Republican National Committee or the campaigns, or the “Koch Brothers or any of the high-profile players in the campaign.”

“I have actually made a decision to stay out of the Republican race and not endorse anybody,” he says. “I don’t want the film to be seen as an extension of the Republican establishment or of any other candidate. This is a film about the other side of the aisle.”

The focus on the Democratic party, rather than just Clinton herself, left open the possibility that Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders could upend the race and secure the nomination. Much of “Hillary’s America” was shot in the fall, just as it was becoming clear that Sanders was a serious challenger.

D’Souza expects what he calls “good controversy,” but argues that his project is being done in a “very responsible way.” Not too surprisingly, the trailer already has gotten some pushback.

“I would love to cross swords with Michael Moore or Van Jones or Elizabeth Warren,” he says of the potential reaction.

If there is one figure who has served as an unintended inspiration for conservative filmmakers, it is Moore.

“Fahrenheit 9/11,” which grossed almost $120 million at the box office, opened in July 2004, just as President George W. Bush was running for reelection.

After its runaway success, Bossie, a well-known Washington political activist who ran the conservative advocacy org Citizens United, rusheda response, called “Celsius 41.11,”that debuted in the waning weeks of the presidential campaign.

Box office results were minute compared with the “Fahrenheit” haul, but the experience was just the start of Bossie’s production company, Citizens United Prods., which has produced a host of conservative documentaries ever since, depending heavily on home video sales.

When Bossie set out to show “Hillary, the Movie” in 2008 on on-demand platforms, federal election officials deemed its promotional ads as electioneering, in violation of campaign finance laws prohibiting corporate and union spending on such spots so close to an election.

That paved the way for Bossie to pursue a First Amendment court challenge, eventually leading to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 decision that opened the door to independent corporate expenditures advocating for or against candidates.

Even as the decision has been a rallying cry for Clinton and Bernie Sanders about the corruptive influence of money in politics, Bossie defends the ruling, arguing that it has freed up filmmakers of all types to make political movies that could be distributed and advertised when it really mattered — just before an election.

“That is why we had to go to court,” Bossie says. “Whether it is ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ or ‘Hillary, the Sequel,’ it is important to put these films out at a time when people are engaged in the election.”

To Bossie and those who backed him in his case, it didn’t make sense that “Fahrenheit 9/11,” distributed by Lionsgate, fell under a media exemption, while “Hillary, the Movie,” distributed by Citizens United, a nonprofit with corporate contributions, did not.

In 2004 Bossie had filed a Federal Election Commission challenge to “Fahrenheit 9/11,” so he was well aware that the release plans for “Hillary, the Movie” also would face scrutiny.

As the Supreme Court was about to consider the case, some surprising organizations came to Bossie’s defense, like the ACLU, which had been the target of a Citizens United documentary, “ACLU: At War With America.”

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press also arguedthat a problematic part of campaign finance law it that it left it up to courts or Congress to determine which organizations got a media exemption and which did not.

Progressive groups like People for the American Waycounter that the “real-world consequence” of Citizens United has been to expand the political power of corporations at the expense of the political freedom of citizens.

Bossie, who recently defended the ruling in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, argues that filmmakers of all partisan stripes will not have to face federal election challenges to their marketing and release plans. He said that it was too soon to reveal release plans for “Hillary, the Sequel,” although it will get a theatrical run.

Clinton has taken note on the campaign trail, citing it in her New Hampshire concession speech and at other times noting that “now I’m in their cross-hairs again.”

“They took aim at me, but they ended up damaging our entire democracy,” she said in September, according to the AP. “We can’t let them pull that same trick again.”

https://www.mediamatters.org/steve-deace/nefarious-steve-deaces-self-proclaimed-christo-fascist-propaganda-horror-movie-has-been

mma 6 23

right-wing media have promoted the Christian film Nefarious as one of the latest battlegrounds in so-called “spiritual warfare.” Through strategically cut trailers, influencer promotion, and a Coachella event, the film's creators have worked to “subversively” market it as a generic thriller to a mainstream audience in the hopes that it would “show them the light.”

The movie Nefarious is a prequel to A Nefarious Plot, a book by right-wing commentator and BlazeTV host Steve Deace, who partnered with directors Chuck Konzelman and Cary Solomon — the duo behind other right-wing faith-based movies such as Unplanned and God’s Not Dead1 and 2. Deace has an extensive history of using virulently anti-LGBTQ, misogynistic, anti-abortion, and other bigoted rhetoric such as saying lessons for kids about Pride Month are “right out of the pit of hell.” He claimed that he and his company “invested millions of dollars that [he] frankly didn’t have to make this movie” because “storytelling” is the “last place left where real persuasion can occur.”

Though marketed to a mainstream audience as a standard horror movie, Nefarious serves as a “Christian allegory, and it is conveyed with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer,” as the Washington Examiner put it, with the two main characters — an atheist psychiatrist and a death-row inmate who claims to be possessed by a demon — debating the existence of the devil and God. The movie also suggests humanity is engaged in a spiritual war against demonic forces, with the demoncelebrating and mocking progressive political and social stances that have taken root in American society, like abortion rights and LGBTQ equality.

The movie’s theme is captured in a scene featuring bigoted conspiracy theorist and BlazeTV founder Glenn Beck, playing himself. Beck asks the psychiatrist, “What happens to an atheist that is confronted by demonic evil?” Later the psychiatrist notes, “There’s a great battle going on, whether we realize it or not — a battle between good and evil — and we’re all participants, willing or not.”

The film’s promotion of a right-wing Christian worldview on viewers is clear: On his BlazeTV podcast, Deace agreed with an online reviewer who described it as “Christo-facist propaganda.” Yet Deace, Solomon, and Konzelman repeatedly admitted that Nefarious was marketed as a standard horror film to reach viewers who might not choose to see a faith-based movie. The film started streaming on June 2 and it has been playing in hundreds of theaters nationwide for at least seven weeks, grossing over $5 million.

Nefarious’ creators marketed it as a standard horror film to attract “nonbelievers” 

In April, Deace boasted to right-wing groupThe Family Leaderthat the film’s trailer was crafted “subversively” to portray Nefarious as a horror movie and hide from potential moviegoers that it was faith-based and contained right-wing ideological themes. Apparently, the trailer played ahead of the nonfaith-based movie Cocaine Bear in at least some theaters. In the same interview, Deace went on to call the Motion Picture Association “demonic” for the R rating that Nefarious received, claiming that it was given this rating only because the group was afraid “unbelieving” kids “would be impacted by it.”

Deace, as well as directors Solomon and Konzelman, repeatedly admitted to trying to attract a mainstream audience.

The movie was seemingly also promoted through aninfluencer campaign— a growing tactic within the right-wing ecosystem that can create a false impression of organic public support.

[pix twt]

at least two dozen influencer and meme accounts, including accounts affiliated with right-wing influencer group Today is America, across Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok promoted Nefarious, particularly in late April after it received a 33% review on Rotten Tomatoes. The content of the various posts was very similar, if not exactly the same, generally using the hashtag #WokenTomatoes, and encouraging followers to see the movie. 

It also appears that there was a red carpet event in Palm Springs, California, for the film prior to the Coachella music festival, seemingly hosted by actor Paul Butcher and attended by celebrities including Victoria Justice. Like much of the film’s official marketing, the event seems to have presented Nefarious primarily as a paranormal thriller, not a faith-based movie. From photos shared of the event — which was attended by mainstream social media influencers with hundreds of thousands or even millions of followers — it appears that guests were entertained with a tattoo booth and a vodka company was a sponsor.

[twt]

right-wing media figures are promoting Nefarious using rhetoric from the religious right that warns of an ongoing“spiritual war”

The larger political context surrounding the release of Nefarious is growing Christian nationalism and apocalyptic political rhetoric on the right, which frames the country as engaged in existential “spiritual warfare” against satanic forces.

Some right-wing media figures are alsolabeling trans people and abortion as “demonic,” and Konzelman and Soloman made similar claims in various interviews while promoting Nefarious. In one, they cited the existence of trans people as evidence ofsatanic influence: “There will come a time when good is considered bad, and bad is considered good, when women will be as men, when all these things that are happening in our world today. … You can see the devil’s machinations.”

Numerous right-wing media figures — and even members of Congress — have endorsed or promoted Nefarious, including Glenn Beck, right-wing influencer and neo-Nazi collaborator Jack Posobiec, BlazeTV hostAllie Beth Stuckey, The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh, Salem Radio hostEric Metaxas, conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza, right-wing podcast host Elijah Schaffer, former Trump administration official Ben Carson, former Newsmax host Grant Stinchfield, and disgraced former Trump attorney Sidney Powell

[vid]?

several right-wing and Christian media outlets also covered the movie’s message positively, including Fox News, Church Militant, Breitbart, The Christian Post, Western Journal, Christian Broadcasting Network, The Federalist, and The Daily Wire.

1/2 ad sponsors gone; trump crap poll 52% ppl have spoken

https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/elon-musk-unilaterally-reinstating-banned-twitter-accounts-despite-assuring-civil-rights

https://www.mediamatters.org/dinesh-dsouza/election-denier-dinesh-dsouzas-reach-twitter-more-doubles-after-elon-musk-takeover

no lnx vid twt

Election denier Dinesh D'Souza's reach on Twitter more than doubles after Elon Musk takeover

WRITTEN BY MADELINE PELTZ

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM CARLY EVANS & KAYLA GOGARTY

PUBLISHED 11/22/22

Since Elon Musk took ownership of Twitter on October 27, the average interactions on tweets from election denier Dinesh D’Souza have more than doubled, expanding the reach of a major source of disinformation and debunked conspiracy theories about the integrity of the 2020 election.

According to a Media Matters review of D’Souza’s tweets, he earned nearly 3.9 million interactions on 681 posts — averaging over 5,700 interactions per post during the 24-day period since Musk’s acquisition (between October 28 and November 20). This is a 144% increase from the more than 2,300 average interactions per post on D’Souza’s 682 posts from the 24-day period prior to the takeover.

D’Souza is a long-time troll and filmmaker best known for his inflammatory smears of Democrats and the left and unhinged pro-Trump commentary. His recent movie 2000 Mules took the right-wing media by storm, promoted far and wide across the echochamber as a way to keep false claims over voter fraud in the 2020 election alive in the years since Trump lost. An unfettered platform on Twitter will allow these types of conspiracy theories to spread even more easily. Musk himself recently liked a tweet from D’Souza that praised the platform under his management and replied: “Correct.”

Elon Musk replies to Dinesh D'Souza

D’Souza noted his increased engagement on his podcast, saying, “My own traction on Twitter has just exploded in the last few weeks and the reason can be put down to two words: Elon Musk” adding, “We’re delighted. I’m a big fan of Elon Musk because I think that what he’s doing is great.”

Video CitationFrom the November 21, 2022 edition of The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

Some of D’Souza’s most engaged tweets since October 28 have promoted election denial and conspiracy theories about the attack on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi.

On November 17, D’Souza quote-tweeted a video that edited together footage of voters dropping ballots at drop boxes in Maricopa County, Arizona, with quotes from failed gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and reports from Fox News about Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ victory in the race. The video, set over ominous music, seems to suggest that the voters casting their vote were involved in some sort of undefined election fraud based on the vote tally shifting from Lake to Hobbs.

D’Souza’s tweet received over 41,000 likes, and the video has 1.4 million views as of this writing.

The account D’Souza quote tweeted, @Lauren3veMemes, has a verified blue check mark from subscribing to Twitter Blue, a subscription service launched by Musk that has since been postponed. Despite this, the program has allowed right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists an opportunity to purchase a verified platform.

D’Souza has also shared multiple conspiracy theories about the attack on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s husband, falsely claiming the attacker was in his underwear when he was arrested, despite the allegation being retracted the same day it was first reported by a reporter for the local Fox affiliate in San Francisco, KTVU.

D’Souza’s tweet received nearly 50,000 likes. Another tweet falsely claiming Pelosi knew his attacker received over 83,000 likes.

D’Souza’s movie 2000 Mules, which pushed debunked conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, has been a critical touchstone for the right-wing movement since its release in May of this year. The movie, which was based on unsubstantiated “research” from the QAnon connected group True the Vote, inspired conspiracy theorist Melody Jennings to launch a voter intimidation effort to “monitor” drop boxes in Maricopa County ahead of the midterms. Some of her volunteers showed up with what appeared to be weapons and wearing tactical gear.

In less than a month, Elon Musk has driven away half of Twitter’s top 100 advertisers

11/22/22 4:40 PM EST

Elon Musk is unilaterally reinstating banned Twitter accounts, despite assuring civil rights groups and advertisers that he wouldn’t

11/22/22 1:13 PM EST

Dinesh D'Souza defends the Oath Keepers

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/14/arizona-ag-true-the-vote-00061973

no lnx

KYLE CHENEY and NICHOLAS WU

10/14/2022

The office of Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is asking the FBI and IRS to investigate True the Vote, a conservative vote-monitoring nonprofit Donald Trump has repeatedly touted for its efforts to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

:{

}:

Reginald Grigsby, an investigator with Brnovich’s office, described a series of questionable interactions with the group’s leaders and suggested there may be evidence of financial improprieties if the agencies pursued them.

:{

}:

“Given TTV’s status as a nonprofit organization, it would appear that further review of its financials may be warranted,” Grigsby wrote.

:{

}:

The letter, dated Friday, is particularly remarkable coming from the office of Brnovich, a Republican who once vied for Trump’s support in a Senate GOP primary bid that hinged on false claims about the 2020 election results.

The IRS and the FBI’s Phoenix field office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A True the Vote spokesperson could not immediately be reached for comment.

Grigsby urged the federal agencies to pursue the group after what it described as multiple suspicious interactions with leaders Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips. Grigsby said the pair met with state investigators three times since early 2021 and promised to provide data it said would prove widespread fraud in the 2020 election — but the evidence never arrived.

:{

}:

Even though the group never turned over the promised data, Grigsby wrote, it began publicly claiming that it had given the state a hard drive — a claim Grigsby indicated the group also made to the Arizona Senate and to the Phoenix office of the FBI.

“Not only is this patently false, TTV acknowledged via correspondence and during a meeting with them that they had not given us the information but that they would,” he wrote.

True the Vote propagated claims of vote fraud by relying on geolocation data, which became the central focus of the movie “2000 Mules.” Trump has cited the movie as proof the election was stolen, and he’s praised the group’s work. But the movie’s claims have been sharply called into question by federal investigators and researchers who have tested its theories.

Former Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a forceful rebuke of the movie’s premise in testimony to the Jan. 6 select committee. He told the panel that in any metropolitan area, geolocation data would likely show “hundreds” of people who passed by drop boxes on multiple occasions.

“The premise that if you go by a box, five boxes or whatever it was, you know that that’s a mule is just indefensible,” Barr said, adding, “It didn’t establish widespread illegal harvesting,” Barr said.

Despite Barr’s mockery of the premise, Trump has promoted its claims both online and during his public events.

:{

}:

In an April 2022 meeting, Grigsby said the group claimed to have evidence of “243 mules” who had stuffed ballot boxes in Arizona. But they presented no hard evidence to back it up, he said.

In his most recent meeting with the group on June 1, Grigsby said Engelbrecht and Phillips indicated they had shared all their data with the FBI and were working with the bureau as informants. But he said the FBI’s Phoenix field office quickly confirmed this to be false and said the group had, in turn, told FBI agents to contact Brnovich’s office to obtain their data.

:{

}:

Grigsby also flagged the nonprofit status of the organization, noting the “considerable sums of money” they had raised while alleging massive voter fraud and promises to provide law enforcement with the information — even as they remained unable to provide the information.

demon spawn

922 gmail

https://www.the**epochtimes**.com:{/dsouza-gill:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:-and-marc-morano-discuss-what-the:{-great-reset-:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}:means-for-us_4717631.html

https://www.danielledsouzagill.com/

dad podcast:Danielle D'Souza Gill joins me to talk about "Counterculture," her new weekly show for Epoch TV, sponsored by the Epoch Times. She argues that conservatives can now claim the countercultural mantle that was once the province of the Left.

https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/oans-summer-election-conspiracy-theories

The 2020 presidential election was 693 days ago, and One America News Network is still a major hub for both denying the reality of 2020 and projecting conspiracy theories onto future elections.

Since June, OAN’s election fraud coverage has continued to hinge on hosts’ and guests’ repeated denials of the fairness of the 2020 election. It has included everything from claims that the ballot counts were tampered with to continued promotion of Dinesh D'Souza's ridiculous 2000 Mules documentary. And despite an ongoing $1.6 billion defamation suit, OAN has even proclaimed that “we were right” about Dominion Voting Systems.

With the stolen election as bedrock, OAN is looking grimly toward the future, with paranoid warnings that the Democrats will now use TikTok, postal unions, and their October surprise — “the next COVID election variant” — to cheat in the midterms and beyond. All this as the supposedly “Stalinesque” FBI runs interference for President Joe Biden’s political goals with actions like seizing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s cell phone.

OAN’s stolen election cinematic universe remains as rich with misinformation as ever, and they're hoping their viewers get involved. As Steve Bannon put it during an appearance on the network, “It’s all about … whether this audience, whether this audience turns out and brings people with it, and becomes poll workers, election judges, election officials, and also force multipliers to get everybody to the polls...

2?! req login? crossroads

https://www.theepochtimes.com/:{the-great-reset-the-permanent-lockdown:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}:-and-the-globalist-end-game-marc-morano_4717165.html

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/true-the-vote-election-fraud/

no lnx many

How True the Vote Fabricates Claims of Election Fraud, for Fun and Profit

Gregg Phillips, a former Texas official who claims that “2,000 mules” stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump, has raised millions of dollars to chase nonexistent fraudulent votes.

By Mimi Swartz

August 22, 2022

Gregg Phillips True the Vote

Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips.]

If your movie preferences lean toward the likes of Top Gun: Maverick, or if your politics fall anywhere to the left of Liz Cheney, you might have missed the theatrical release of a documentary titled 2000 Mules. But if you tuned in to the January 6 hearings, you might have caught a reference to the film by former attorney general William Barr, who, doubling as a movie critic, dismissed it as “singularly unimpressive” and “indefensible.”

Directed by right-wing provocateur Dinesh D’Souza, 2000 Mules purports to prove that Democrats engaged in widespread voter fraud during the 2020 election and stole the presidency from Donald Trump—who, coincidentally or not, pardoned D’Souza in 2018 after his felony conviction for making illegal campaign contributions. Trump, who hosted a screening of 2000 Mules at Mar-a-Lago, called it the “greatest and most impactful documentary of our time.”

As with so many things hyped by the former president, the film became a viral sensation, complete with its own eponymous hashtag. It is among the highest-grossing documentaries of the year so far, having earned nearly $1.5 million at the box office since its May release. (Documentaries don’t tend to attract Marvel franchise–size audiences.) Streaming revenues—D’Souza’s website sells the film for $19.99 a pop—totaled $10 million in just the first two weeks of release, according to Salem Media Group, the conservative Christian company that financed the film.

Whatever haul it’s actually made, 2000 Mules and its claims have clearly achieved a broad reach. A Rasmussen poll of 1,000 likely U.S. voters conducted in the first week in June found that 41 percent had heard of the film and 15 percent had seen it. (Of the 146 likely voters who had watched the film, 77 percent said it strengthened their “conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.”) One of the movie’s admiring viewers was Texas Secretary of State John Scott, a Greg Abbott appointee who briefly represented Trump in a challenge to Pennsylvania’s 2000 election tally. “It’s really amazing,” the state election chief told an audience of Jewish conservatives in Dallas in mid-July. “You get an enormous amount of information.”

This success has come despite the movie’s claims being repeatedly debunked. The Associated Press, NPR, the New York Times, PolitiFact, and the Washington Post, among others, have pointed out that the film’s central assertion—that cellphone tracking data reveals multiple trips by Democrat-funded flunkies (a.k.a. “mules”) to stuff drop boxes with phony ballots in battleground states—is just so much hooey. The film contains video footage of people putting multiple ballots into drop boxes (which is not, as the film would have it, illegal). But as NPR notes, the videos never show the same individuals taking votes to multiple drop boxes, or returning to the same boxes to stuff them with additional ballots.

Some of the alleged ballot-harvesters get tagged as though they’ve been spied on by undercover cops—including “dog guy,” who was filmed with his pup. Another fellow is deemed suspicious for taking a picture of his bike propped against a drop box after voting. “If you’re just casting your own ballot,” one of the film’s talking heads asks darkly, “what reason in the world would you have to come back and take a picture of the box?” Millions of Instagram users could provide the answer.

The absurdities don’t stop there. A map that purports to depict cellphone usage in Atlanta—one of the main alleged centers of mulish activity—actually shows a slice of Moscow, according to the Washington Post. The film boasts that the “geolocation” technology not only backs up Trump’s assertions of systematic election theft but had such pinpoint accuracy that it also helped solve the murder of an eight-year-old girl in Georgia. Law enforcement officials told NPR that there was no truth to the story; the murder had been solved two months before the brains behind 2000 Mules said they turned over their evidence to authorities.

You might think such disproven claims would discredit the filmmakers. But for many conspiracy theorists, the depictions of shadowy, hoodie-wearing figures approaching ballot drop boxes, interspersed with images of dark rooms lit by computer screens displaying incomprehensible maps and diagrams, is proof aplenty.

The star of the show, along with D’Souza and the hoodied mules, is Gregg Phillips, a Republican who has served as a state official in Mississippi and Texas. He is credited with developing the technology used to “prove” the mules’ nefarious deeds. According to the film, Phillips has “a deep background in election intelligence; he’s worked projects over the world; he has a massive thirty years’ experience.” His costar is Catherine Engelbrecht, founder of the Houston-based nonprofit True the Vote, whose stated mission is to “restore America’s confidence in our electoral process.”

Phillips has served as a board member and a highly paid “researcher” for True the Vote. He and Engelbrecht are listed as executive producers of 2000 Mules. And both have shown, time and again, how a lot of money can be made by purporting to show—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—that voter fraud is an organized threat to our democracy. As Texas-based reporter Cassandra Jaramillo writes in a recent exposé for the investigative website Reveal, “True the Vote highlights how exploiting the Big Lie has become a lucrative enterprise.”

Engelbrecht and Phillips make a cinematic pair. She is blond, always impeccably made up, and earnest in the way of a former Texas beauty queen turned marketing executive. The tall, pale-eyed Phillips, who began his political career, and his hunt for voter fraud, in Alabama in the eighties, is as steady and sincere as an undertaker, with the kind of elaborate, well-tended facial hair that evokes a Civil War general. You could think of them as the Barbie and Ken of voter fraud, or maybe the Bonnie and Clyde.

Engelbrecht, a former small-business owner and Parent Teacher Organization board member in southeast Texas, began chasing alleged voter fraud in 2009 after finding herself “sickened” by the election of President Barack Obama. She’s been a leading advocate for restrictive voter ID laws and purges of voter rolls, and has organized controversial poll-watching efforts focused on Black and Hispanic neighborhoods in Houston.

Elected officials including the late Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas have raised questions about the tactics of Engelbrecht’s organizations. King Street Patriots, the anti-voter-fraud group that Engelbrecht founded prior to True the Vote, in 2009, was registered as a charitable 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Democratic officials and voting rights groups such as Fair Fight, founded by Stacey Abrams, the former Democratic legislator and current candidate for governor of Georgia, have charged that True the Vote uses “suppressive tactics” and supports only Republican candidates, in violation of nonprofit rules. Journalists for the Washington Post and the Center for Investigative Reporting have documented questionable financial dealings—including the transfer of large sums of money going to Engelbrecht’s and Phillips’s for-profit businesses. In every case, the two have denied wrongdoing.

(Texas Monthly made multiple requests to interview Engelbrecht and Phillips, then sent a detailed list of questions to them and James Bopp, a lawyer who has represented True the Vote. Brian Glicklich, True the Vote’s communications consultant, said Engelbrecht and Phillips would not respond to questions or meet with a reporter.)

Phillips became nationally notorious immediately after the 2016 election, when he tweeted on November 11—soon after Trump had defeated Hillary Clinton—that he had “Completed analysis of database of 180 million voter registrations. Number of non-citizen votes exceeds 3 million.” At the time, Phillips was marketing an app he’d created, called VoteStand, which allowed users to send photos or videos of suspected improper voting or electioneering to a central database.

Not surprisingly, President-elect Trump jumped on Phillips’s claim, tweeting: “Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand. Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal.” (Coincidentally or not, that is approximately the margin by which Clinton won the popular vote.) Despite promises to produce evidence of his claims, Phillips never did so. Reputable election officials from both parties, in states across the country, said no such fraud took place. But Phillips’s “finding” became the basis for Trump to repeatedly assert what he started saying in November of that year: “I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

The Associated Press, among others, started poking into Phillips’s history in the wake of his splashy claim. In 2017, AP reported that the self-proclaimed foe of voter fraud was registered in 2016 to vote in three states: Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas. Queried on that subject, Phillips’s response was, “Why would I know or care? Doesn’t that just demonstrate how broken the system is?”

Across the country, judges appointed by presidents of both parties have heard claims of widespread voter fraud, with not one finding any compelling evidence to support them. Yet Phillips and Engelbrecht, along with Trump, have brought to mind Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels’ observation that “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” When the lie is amplified by partisan outlets such as Fox News and by influencers on social media, that makes it easier for the conspiracy mongers to advance their political goals—and for some to make money along the way.

Christian Menefee, a Democrat who serves as county attorney for Harris County, where Houston is located, told me that “the lies and exaggerations about voter fraud . . . are used by conspiracy theorists to file meritless lawsuits, and by elected officials to push partisan audits that end up finding nothing. It leads legislators to pass restrictive voting laws, causes people to question election processes that have been safely used for decades, and makes election workers fear they’ll find themselves in court if they make a minor mistake. These are real impacts, changing how our elections are run and making it harder for eligible voters to cast ballots.”

Andrew Wheat, the research director of the corruption-exposing nonprofit group Texans for Public Justice, put it a little differently. “Sometimes you get the feeling that we as a human race have lost the ability to do a simple Google search, because these hustlers keep doing the same things over and over.”

When Gregg Phillips entered political life in his home state of Alabama, he was a clean-shaven, baby-faced fund-raiser for the state’s Republican party. As he later told the Atlantic, “Our first voter project I did when I worked for the GOP in Alabama back in the 1980s. I’ve been involved off and on since then, and I’ve always said we need to ensure integrity in our systems.”

At a legislative hearing in Arizona in late May, Phillips recounted an experience back home that he said turned him into a crusader against voter fraud. In 1994, a race for chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama between the Democratic incumbent, Ernest “Sonny” Hornsby, and a Republican challenger, Perry O. Hooper Sr., came down to fewer than 300 votes out of 1.1 million cast. Hooper, whose campaign was run by GOP campaign guru Karl Rove, won after a recount. But while the outcome was in question, Hooper’s campaign made vociferous charges of voter fraud, which were never proved. Phillips said he advised the campaign in its investigation. “I worked in Alabama since I was a kid and you know, 15,000 votes showing up in Selma, Alabama”—a city that is overwhelmingly Black—“was not a super big surprise to anyone,” Phillips told his Arizona audience.

In 1991, Phillips moved on to work in Mississippi as a fund-raiser for Kirk Fordice, who became the first Republican to be elected governor of the state since Reconstruction. Fordice, in turn, tapped Phillips to head the Mississippi Department of Human Services in 1993. But when the Joint Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (or PEER), made up of legislators appointed by the lieutenant governor and house Speaker, conducted a background check on Phillips, it found discrepancies in his résumé. Phillips, who was then 33, claimed he’d majored in finance at the University of Alabama, but the committee’s records search showed he had majored in transportation. And though Phillips said he was a registered voter in Mississippi at the time, the committee found that his name did not appear on the rolls. Phillips also failed to file a required financial report to the state ethics commission. And he was, according to reports citing his former wife’s new husband, a deadbeat dad who’d failed to pay child support. (Phillips denied that accusation.)

Nevertheless, the state Senate approved his nomination. Within two years, Phillips left for more lucrative work with a contractor who had benefited from an $878,000 deal with his department. Phillips’s new salary: $84,000 a year. (In today’s dollars, that’s around $164,000.) A subsequent investigation by the same PEER committee concluded that “Mr. Phillips’ actions create the appearance of impropriety, facilitating an erosion of the public trust.” The committee also asserted that Phillips’s moves “relative to the contractual arrangement create the appearance of impropriety and could constitute a violation of state ethics laws.” Phillips denied any wrongdoing.

Phillips’s next public position was as the executive director of the Mississippi GOP, which was hellbent on combatting alleged voter fraud in Black communities (in a state that is 38 percent Black). A lawsuit from Black leaders in one such area resulted in a restraining order against the state GOP’s voter-intimidation tactics, and representatives from the U.S. Department of Justice stationed themselves at polling locations during Mississippi’s 1995 elections to make sure voters of color were not turned away. The state GOP provided no evidence of the fraud that it had alleged.

Phillips hadn’t yet become a national figure, but his pattern was set: a life of toggling between ever-more-lucrative public and private-sector jobs. Phillips has mostly shown impeccable timing in his entrances and exits, experiencing only one glitch: he was up for a job as head of human resources for the state of Alabama in 1995, but a negative editorial in the Birmingham News dashed his chances, citing Phillips’s “shaky qualifications and a suspect track record.”

For some Texas Republicans, though, Phillips’s track record seemed to inspire little more than a shoulder shrug. In 2003, Phillips was hired as executive deputy commissioner of the state Health and Human Services Commission under Governor Rick Perry. (When a Houston Chronicle reporter later looked into how Phillips had come to be hired, no officials could recall. There were no letters of recommendation in his file.)

Another reported conflict of interest followed. When Phillips oversaw a billion-dollar plan to streamline and privatize Health and Human Services, two clients of a company called Enterject, a “management consulting services” firm that Phillips had founded, won $167 million in state contracts. Phillips claimed to have severed all ties with Enterject while serving in state government, but his then-wife was the company’s chief financial officer. In addition, the Chronicle reported, “a company called GHT Development Inc. owned the Internet registration for the Enterject Web site. GHT listed Gregg Phillips as its chief executive.”

When Phillips resigned from the Texas HHSC, he said it was because of a lingering health issue and that he wanted to spend more time with his family. But as it had in Mississippi, controversy followed him. According to a subsequent Dallas Morning News investigation, the company Phillips hired to replace state workers—to the tune of $899 million for five years—produced chaos, including jammed call centers and clients who were separated wrongfully from their benefits. “Most infamously,” the News reported, “applicants for a time were given a wrong fax number for sending pay stubs and other private documents. It belonged to a Seattle warehouse that had no part of the deal.”

Five years later, in 2010, the state hired an Austin-based company called AutoGov to help fix the continuing problems in Health and Human Services, at a cost to taxpayers of $207,500. State officials thought the company’s software expertise might simplify some of the confusion Phillips had left behind. Phillips, it turned out, had founded AutoGov and served as its chairman and CEO. The News reported that there was nothing illegal about bringing Phillips back into the fold given the years he had been away from state government, but noted that “critics of the deal say it’s troubling that a former employee is getting paid to try to fix problems spawned by an idea he helped hatch.”

Engelbrecht and Phillips have shown, time and again, how a lot of money can be made by purporting to show that voter fraud is an organized threat to our democracy.

Nobody can deny that Phillips is relentlessly entrepreneurial. In 2012, he garnered attention nationally with his VoteStand app. “People will have somewhere to turn if they see voter fraud or something that is not quite right in their eyes,” Phillips explained to Politico. “We think this will help us leave a positive legacy this election cycle, rather than just putting up a bunch of ads.” The app, available for iPhone through Apple’s app store, purportedly sent all reports to a “team of experts that are interested in and investigating this issue,” Phillips said, though he declined to offer more specifics about how the app worked and who had paid for its development. (He also declined to answer Texas Monthly’s question about who the “experts” were.)

It turned out that funding for VoteStand came from a super PAC, Winning Our Future, for which Phillips served as managing director. The PAC, which received $15 million from right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, backed former Republican U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s unsuccessful presidential run in 2012.

Phillips appears to have connected with Catherine Engelbrecht around 2014, when she was continuing to gain national notoriety for fighting imaginary voter fraud. Phillips had his mysterious technology, and Engelbrecht had a platform to market their investigations nationwide.That year, Phillips followed up on VoteStand with a nonprofit he founded called theVoters Trust, which offered a $1 million bounty to anyone who could prove that IRS leaders or members of the Obama administration were targeting right-wing or tea party groups. (It’s unclear who collected the cash, if anyone did.)

Even before that time, Englebrecht’s efforts, like Phillips’s, had begun to attract scrutiny. In 2011, the Texas Observer reported on multiple controversies emanating from her King Street Patriots, including one that involved a video featuring a doctored image of a Black woman holding a sign declaring, “I only got to vote once!” In a harbinger of things to come, Engelbrecht’s group had taken “evidence” of invalid voter applications to Harris County’s Republican voter registrar, Leo Vasquez, who subsequently claimed in August 2010 to have found more than five thousand such invalid applications.

The questionable research from King Street Patriots was challenged by Houston Votes, a progressive group that was registering voters. Englebrecht had publicly claimed that Houston Votes was being controlled by the New Black Panthers, a “radical, racist, criminal hate group.” The group’s leader filed a defamation suit, but the damage had been done: before the allegations were made, Houston Votes had been registering one thousand minority voters a day; afterward, its daily tally dropped to two hundred. That November, at the request of Democratic congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, federal monitors from the Department of Justice came to Houston to protect voters against intimidation by King Street poll watchers on Election Day.

More trouble followed. The Texas Democratic Party filed a lawsuit alleging that King Street Patriots made “unlawful expenditures in coordination with the Republican Party and/or one or more of its candidates.” The suit further alleged that King Street was a “sham domestic nonprofit corporation that instead acts as an unregistered and illegal political committee.” Though King Street denied the allegations, a state court judge ruled in favor of the Democrats. Appeals dragged on for several years, however, by which time King Street had morphed into a different group, True the Vote. The case was ultimately dismissed by agreement of both parties, and, according to Chad Dunn, the attorney who represented the Democrats, “It looks like Catherine went into the vote-suppression business full-time.”

None of the controversies stopped Engelbrecht from becoming a tea party star, hosting events where she charmed Republican county clerks, state legislators, and members of Congress in Texas and beyond. Despite the clear partisan flavor of these events, Engelbrecht continued to claim that True the Vote was nonpartisan. Engelbrecht was becoming a Fox News darling, and True the Vote said it was organizing poll-watching volunteers in 35 states, while pushing for voter roll purges and drawing accusations of voter intimidation.

It’s easy to see why Engelbrecht and Phillips joined forces. They had a lot in common, including a loathing for President Obama, a love of the spotlight, and a penchant for turning a personal profit from their crusades against alleged voter fraud. Their companies have shared a mailing address, and in 2016 Engelbrecht was named the chief financial officer of one of Phillips’s companies. Engelbrecht and Phillips have been coy about a reported romantic link, though both listed the same address in the small Central Texas town of Cat Spring, about sixty miles west of Houston, for several years. “You know, Gregg and I have actually talked about this and how we would answer this question,” Engelbrecht told the New York Times in May, “and the best answer that I think either of us are going to give is, it is totally unrelated and unimportant.”

Regardless, they’ve made quite a team. By 2016, True the Vote’s national influence was growing, with a substantial network of volunteers, event co-sponsorships with the Koch brothers’ tea party advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, and data collected by Phillips, who by then was touting a proprietary algorithm for his research. (That includes the research that he claimed—without ever showing any evidence—proved that more than three million noncitizens voted in 2016.) In the two years prior to 2016, one of Phillips’s companies was paid $30,000 by True the Vote, while he was a board member of the organization.

Allegations of widespread voter fraud were repeated by Donald Trump and right-wing media so often that they became gospel, first on the far right and eventually among a majority of Republicans. Phillips was always eager to congratulate himself for his work. “I’ve torn down govt in two states, eliminated 20K jobs and saved $5 billion,” he boasted in a 2016 tweet. “Requires enormous stones.”

When legitimate media outlets came calling, Phillips was more circumspect about his never-proved claim of more than three million illegal votes. “I’m not gonna be goaded into going faster than I want to,” he told the Atlantic in January 2017, when pressed about releasing his data. “I’m not a government official.” Besides, he said, “Our interest is not in uncovering anything that might somehow change any past election, because once those votes are certified, they’re certified and that’s over. The work that we’re doing could create a foundation for looking at elections moving forward.” The same month, The Guardian reported that the man who had built a career excising government waste owed about $100,000 in back taxes. Phillips said he owed less than $50,000, and that he was “in a disagreement with the IRS.”

A lesser man might have retreated with his spoils to, say, a villa in the Caymans. Not Phillips. Joe Biden’s victory in 2020—along with Trump’s incessant claim that the election had been stolen—inspired a deeply conservative North Carolina donor by the name of Fred Eshelman to wire $2 million shortly after Election Day to True the Vote, whose leaders were saying they needed to raise $7.3 million to stop the certification of the election and get to the bottom of the grand conspiracy that robbed Trump of his presidency. A former pharmaceutical executive and financier who gave $100 million to the University of North Carolina, Eshelman could afford to make the biggest donation True the Vote had ever received.

On November 9, not long after Eshelman’s payment arrived, Phillips’s latest venture, OPSEC, billed True the Vote $350,000. The following day, True the Vote gave a $500,000 retainer to Bopp, a right-wing lawyer best known for winning the Citizens United case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down limits on corporate campaign contributions. While True the Vote had promised that OPSEC would “aggregate and analyze data to identify patterns of election subversion,”Bopp’s role was to try to persuade judges to give the organization access to voter rolls in closely contested states so it could show proof of fraud. Eshelman was told that Bopp would file lawsuits in seven states. He filed four, and then voluntarily withdrew each of them within a week.

Eschelman pitched in another $500,000 after a consultant told him True the Vote needed “additional short-term money for Bopp.” But Bopp, Engelbrecht, and Phillips had promised much and delivered little. “We were just not getting any data or proof,” a lobbyist for Eshelman later told the Washington Post. “We were looking at this and saying to ourselves, ‘This just is not adding up.’”

Disgusted, Eshelman filed suit, demanding a refund. The lawsuit, first filed in federal court, was withdrawn and then refiled in Texas, where a judge threw out the case, ruling that Eshelman did not have standing to sue in the state. The proper authority to investigate the case, the judge said, was the Texas attorney general’s office. Republican attorney general Ken Paxton—who’s been a guest on Engelbrecht’s podcast, has taken no action.

Or rather, the Attorney General’s office has chosen a different kind of action. On May 13th,  before the official May 20th release date of 2000 Mules, Jonathan White, the Division Chief of the AG’s Election Integrity Division, sent out an email to his team, stating that Deputy AG Josh Reno had invited everyone on it to a screening of D’Souza’s “voter fraud documentary” the next evening. The event was free to all comers, along with a plus-one.General Paxton had a block of reservations, White continued, and would be present. “I think they would love to have a good showing from our office…” the head of AG’s Election Integrity Division wrote. The office hosted another screening on June 6, complete with a BBQ lunch.

Meanwhile, according to Reveal’s reporting, court records showed that Phillips’s voter analysis company, OPSEC Group LLC, continued to bill True the Vote after Eschelman broke ties, receiving another $400,000 for a project called Eyes on Georgia.

True the Vote’s tax returns, linked to in the Reveal exposé, have been “riddled with inconsistencies and have regularly been amended,” Jaramillo wrote. Her extensive investigation found that along with the handsome sums paid to Phillips’s various companies for their data analysis, True the Vote has made questionable loans to Engelbrecht, who received $113,396 in 2019 alone.

Phillips is currently CEO and Engelbrecht is “chief experience officer” of a company called CoverMe Services Inc.—formerly known as AutoGov—which says it uses software to “bridge the financial and social service gaps faced by both hospitals and their patients.” CoverMe claims that “in the span of a five-minute interview, hospitals can provide patients with real-time eligibility and enrollment support, creating better outcomes for both the patient and provider.” The State of Mississippi has paid the company close to $1.7 million for its services.

But that doesn’t mean Phillips has given up on voter fraud investigations—especially after the attention garnered by 2000 Mules. The film has the ultimate power-endorser in Trump, who brought up Phillips’s claims again in a twelve-page missive refuting the claims of the January 6 committee. “The data is astonishing!” Trump said in his publicly released statement. “Rather than 2000 mules, the number jumps to 54,000 mules.”

Both Engelbrecht and Phillips are now certified stars on the conspiracy circuit—with their credibility boosted by state and federal lawmakers eager to use their “findings” to make the case for overturning elections. In Wisconsin, the duo addressed the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections in March. In Michigan, seventeen Republican House members asked the state’s attorney general to investigate the claims made in 2000 Mules. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican from Arizona, has called for congressional hearings about the film’s allegations. On July 27, in a sign of how much weight Phillips’s name now carries in far-right circles, Arizona Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake tweeted prior to her primary victory, “I am honored to have the endorsement of True the Vote’s Gregg Phillips!”

Engelbrecht and Phillips have still failed to present any credible evidence to prove the claims they made in the movie. In the Arizona legislative hearing, Phillips said criticism of their methods came from “journalistic terrorists.” (The Republican Party of Arizona picked up on his phrase, twice tweeting out: “The mainstream media is domestic terrorists.”) Asked to describe his process in greater detail, Phillips refused, calling the methods “proprietary.”

Phillips says criticism of True the Vote’s methods comes from “journalistic terrorists.”

On a right-wing podcast in late spring, he claimed that an even bigger finding would soon be revealed. At the hearing in Arizona, he doubled down: “We do indeed have a matter brewing that is ten times bigger than Mules,” he said, inspiring excited whispers in the audience. “It’ll be about six weeks before we can clear our way through it, but I assure you it is the most explosive issue that you have ever come in contact with related to elections in the United States.”

Twelve weeks later, as this story was being published, the explosive revelation had still not been delivered.But Phillips was still dropping hints to titillate the conspiracy-minded. On a podcast in late July, he claimed that what would be revealed stems from an “op” involving “the United States government, which we worked for,” until “we were betrayed by the United States government.” This month, True the Vote held asymposium inArizona called “The Pit,” where Phillips promised to roll out “devastating” findings, including “the part that was left out of the movie.” The proceedings were livestreamed on the Right Side Broadcasting Network. But in lieu of a big reveal, Engelbrecht and Phillips announced they were putting up a new website that would include surveillance video taken at drop boxes and documents from various election lawsuits—but not the geolocation data that was the basis for the film’s allegations. And that, they said, would be a wrap on 2000 Mules. “The end of Mules!” Engelbrecht exclaimed. “End scene. We’re done.”

The pair had already been moving on to their next project. In late July, Phillips appeared withEngelbrecht on a stage in Las Vegas at a gathering of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, an organization of local police officials who claim that federal and state authorities are subordinate to local sheriffs. They were joined by sheriffs who have signed on to True the Vote’s Protect America Now initiative, designed to encourage them to investigate elections—or, as the True the Vote website puts it, to “equip local sheriffs with the tools that they need to fight potential fraud,” such as enhanced video surveillance. A national hotline, according to True the Vote, will be set up “to connect American citizens with their local sheriffs in case they see anything awry” at the polls this fall. Five Texas sheriffs (and one former sheriff) from small, rural counties have signed up.

And so it goes, despite the many investigations of Phillips and Engelbrecht, and despite True the Vote’s continued inability to prove that voter fraud exists. “True the Vote and groups like it are well-documented voter intimidation scams,” said Chris Hollins, a Democrat running for mayor of Houston who, as county clerk for Harris, was on the front lines in the 2020 election. “They’re created to amplify conspiracy theories, funded by wealthy right-wing activists, to tie the hands of election administrators and embolden partisan poll watchers.”

They are also created, as Engelbrecht and Phillips have long demonstrated, with an eye toward making money. To support their efforts to “equip” sheriffs for November’s elections, True the Vote aims to raise a cool $1 million.

Correction 8/22/2022: An earlier version of this article reported Miriam and Sheldon Adelson had given $15 billion to the super PAC Winning Our Future. They gave $15 million.

Update 8/24/2022: This article has been updated to include information about invitations to members of the Texas Attorney General’s office to watch 2,000 Mules.

mma 8 22 youtube

 D'SOUZA (HOST): John has also been a lawyer for Trump. And this is actually what we want to talk about is the – is the actions of the left and trying to go after John and others for their work for former President Trump. John, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for joining me. We actually go kind of way back. As you might remember, I was a Publius Fellow at the Claremont Institute right after Dartmouth. And that's where I met – I met the whole gang of Clare-monsters, as we might call them, who have had such a tremendous influence on American public policy.You have gone on to a really distinguished career. I'd like you to start by just talking about those kind of tense days in the maybe even leading up to the election, but certainly in the aftermath of the election. What is it that you did that is supposedly now driving the left off a cliff and causing them to sort of summon this big kind of lynch mob against you, as if to say that you are a grave enemy of the country and the Constitution.

JOHN EASTMAN (GUEST): Well, in fact, in one of the litigations I'm currently involved with, the January 6 committee actually says not only was I wrong, but I was dangerous. I guess the danger there lies in standing up and speaking the truth to power. And I'm – and I'm catching the same kind of assault that you've been under, Dinesh, for the terrific movie you did, 2000 Mules that starts to expose some of the corruption. You focus there on some very important evidence of outright fraud.I focused mostly on the evidence of illegality.Our Constitution is very clear. 

Article two of the Constitution gives to the legislatures of the states the plenary power to, quote, direct the manner of choosing presidential electors. Most people would find this odd today, but for the first half-century of our nation's history, the legislatures just chose the electors themselves. And – and even when they submit that decision to popular vote as – as all the states have done since the Civil War, the manner that they set out is the election code. And when you had non-legislative officials, secretaries of state, county clerks, what have you, simply ignoring the existing election code laws on absentee ballots, on the requirement of signature verification, all of these steps that the legislatures put in to prevent fraud from occurring because it's so difficult to discover it after the fact. 

Those things were just dispensed with by non-legislative officials,[60 court cases]  and that meant that the election was conducted illegally, even unconstitutionally. And that's what we focused on. And the left doesn't want anybody talking about that,at least not talking about it since 2020. Of course, they talked about it a lot in 2018 and 2016 and what have you. And so what they are now attempting to do is criminalize those that spoke up against the admitted illegality in the conduct of the election. That is, as your movie and other investigations are showing, actually led to the very fraud that those statutory restrictions were put in place to try and prevent.

D'SOUZA: John, you're making a crucial point here, and I want to slow it down because I – I want to make sure I understand it clearly. What you're saying is that even though Trump believed there was fraud and there were, of course, accusations of fraud from the very beginning, you're saying that your argument didn't really depend on that.It didn't depend upon being able to prove instance A, B, C, or D of fraud. You're saying that there is a process that needs to be in place for the Constitution to be upheld. The Constitution dictates how elections should be conducted and who should run them. And the Constitution specifies that the answer to that is state legislatures. And so in the state legislatures and what they specifically put in the code is undercut by secretaries of state, by other officials. Then, in a sense, we have a – an illegal – illegally conducted election, even if you're unable to prove any fraud at all. Am I correct in summarizing that is the argument you're making?

EASTMAN: That's right. And – and the reason that's so important is because of how difficult it is to prove fraud after the fact. And I'll give you one very good example. Wisconsin prohibits drop boxes, unmanned drop boxes, what have you. They also require extensive signature verification and witness signatures on the absentee ballots before they're counted. And the law is very clear. If it doesn't include those things, the ballots shall not be counted.

Now, once you separate the ballot from the envelope and after the fact, try and determined, well, that we didn't have a signature. How do we know that was actually the illegal voter who cast that ballot? Well, you could say, okay, there and now we've got evidence of fraud. But – but how was the vote cast? The ballot is now separated from the envelope and it can't be proved which way it went.

In 2018, in North Carolina's 9th congressional district, there was an illegal ballot harvesting scheme that was conducted on behalf of one of the [GOP?] candidates. Without his knowledge, I might point out. But – but the elections board said we cannot prove then, given the number of illegal ballots that were collected, we can't prove or certify what the actual result of the election is. And they ordered a new election. This is the reason these rules are in place ahead of time.

There was massive cheating that went on.Whether that actually produced the fraud that it was designed to make it difficult to accomplish or not is immaterial to the illegality that occurred. And that's what I tried to focus on in our Supreme Court briefs, both in – in my motion to intervene on behalf of President Trump in the Texas litigation, but in a cert petition filed from Pennsylvania on three of the illegally changed statutes, I mean, they changed the deadlines. They changed the signature verification.

They said, oh, if you're in the room in the Philadelphia Convention Center, which is about as big as a football field, standing all the way at one end, that's good enough to be able to observe what's happening a hundred yards away. I mean, it was insane.

And – and they and – they threw out the ability for people to make any election challenge. They said, even though we've been doing signature verification for a hundred years, we don't find that anywhere in the statutes and all of those statutory provisions that – that seem to acknowledge that those are just archaic relics and you can just ignore them. I mean, this is what the court actually said and the notion that we can change the rules. And by the way, some of that went on after the election up to two weeks after the election. They were still changing the rules for partisan benefit in Pennsylvania. This kind of stuff, we used to call it cheating and they're now trying to go after criminally those people who are calling them out on the illegality, the unconstitutionality, and the cheating.

D'SOUZA: John, let's take a pause.

As YouTube notes on its site:

Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.

cites documented

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/29/us/politics/2000-mules-trump-conspiracy-theory.html

gotta wonder re timing, just dunking/piling on?

https://www.alternet.org**/2022/06/**ann-coulter-2000-mules-stupid/

an 6 22

Long before the rise of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement — long before the Big Lie and the January 6, 2021 insurrection — True the Vote made voter suppression its top priority. Founded in Houston in 2009 by far-right Tea Party activist Catherine Engelbrecht, True the Vote has spent 13 years pushing the false narrative that voter fraud is widespread in Democratic areas.And True the Vote has raised millions of dollars with that narrative. But exactly how that money has been spent, according to Mother Jones reporter Cassandra Jaramillo, remains a mystery.

“A review of thousands of pages of documents from state filings, tax returns, and court records…. paints the picture of an organization that enriches Engelbrecht and partner Gregg Phillips rather than actually rooting out any fraud,”Jaramillo reports in an article published on June 8. “According to the documents, True the Vote has given questionable loans to Engelbrecht and has a history of awarding contracts to companies run by Engelbrecht and Phillips. Within days of receiving $2.5 million from a donor to stop the certification of the 2020 election, True the Vote distributed much of the money to a company owned by Phillips, (attorney James) Bopp’s law firm, and Engelbrecht directly for a campaign that quickly fizzled out.”

True the Vote, according to Jaramillo, has “engaged in a series of questionable transactions that sent more than $1 million combined to its founder, a longtime board member romantically linked to the founder, and the group’s general counsel, an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found.”

True the Vote has a shameful history. The group claims that its mission is to “prevent voter fraud,” but its real mission is making it more difficult to vote — especially if one is African-American. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has been a vehement critic of True the Vote’s efforts to discourage African-Americans and Latinos from voting, saying that a more accurate name for the group would be “Stop the Vote.”

Nonetheless, True the Vote’s voter suppression efforts have made Engelbrecht a star in the MAGA movement and the right-wing media.

“A former PTA mom-turned-Tea Party activist, True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht has played a pivotal role in helping drive the voter fraud movement from the political fringes to a central pillar in the Republican Party’s ideology,” Jaramillo observes. “Casting herself as a God-fearing, small-town Texan, she’s spread the voter-fraud gospel by commanding airtime on cable television, space on the pages of Breitbart News, and even theater seats, as a new feature film dramatizing her organization’s exploits,‘2000 Mules,’ plays in cinemas across the country.”

“2000 Mules,” a documentary by far-right conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza, claims to offer proof that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. But the documentary proves nothing, and D’Souza’s slopping reporting has drawn widespread criticism. Never Trump conservative Amanda Carpenter, for example, has slammed “2000 Mules” as a badly done, embarrassing cash grab on D’Souza’s part.

According to Jaramillo, Reveal’s findings don’t look good for True the Vote.

“The records show: True the Vote regularly reported loans to Engelbrecht, including more than $113,000 in 2019, according to a tax filing,” Jaramillo notes. “Texas law bans nonprofits from loaning money to directors; Engelbrecht is both a director and an employee.”

amanda c

https://www.thebulwark.com/dinesh-dsouzas-2000-mules-is-a-hilarious-mockumentary/

dinesh D’Souza’s 2000 Mules is Plandemic for election truthers. For the non-insane, it’s a hilarious mockumentary. Not that D’Souza cares what the non-insane think: He has discovered that there are enough suckers out there to keep him laughing all the way to the bank.

Released by the Salem Media Group,2000 Mules aspires to be a work of serious investigative reporting which will rock the foundations of American democracy. In reality, 2000 Mulesis an investigative documentary in roughly the same way Reno 911 was a hard-hitting look at real-life police work. Though that doesn’t mean that D’Souza’s cash-grab won’t further pollute the political system. For instance, Kari Lake, who can’t wait to get elected governor of Arizona so she can jail her political opponents, is championing the film—which ends with a plea for law enforcement to take up D’Souza’s cause.

Here’s the elevator pitch for 2000 Mules: D’Souza’s buddies at True the Vote spent $2 million on cellphone geotracking data—which he describes as “digital DNA”—that they say proves “mules” were paid to illegally “traffick” thousands of ballots from non-profit “stash houses” into drop-off ballot boxes.

All D’Souza really has—if the cellphone data is real and is really what he represents it as being—is some evidence that some people made frequent trips in areas around ballot drop-off boxes which, by design, were usually placed in heavily-traveled areas for convenience. Putting that aside, who are these mules? Who paid them? Where is the evidence of people making repeated trips to illegally stuff drop-boxes with ballots? What non-profits were involved? These questions are not even asked, let alone answered, in the movie. The theory of the case relies almost entirely on digital maps with dots and squiggles, supposedly demonstrating the questionable movement of the “mules.” Boom-Diggity. All that’s left is for the FBI to take it from here. Or something.

2000 Mules doesn’t survive the most basic fact-checks to support its most important claims. See them here, here, here, and here. But, let’s stipulate that the film’s purpose isn’t really to present facts. Because if it were true that D’Souza had rock-solid evidence of widespread voter fraud in his possession, would a true patriot like him be selling that evidence for $29.99 per download? Bwahahaha. (In defense of D’Souza, that $29.99 was only the premium VOD price. This week he dropped it to $19.99 to buy or just $14.99 to rent. Or you can get the movie free by purchasing an annual subscription to his Rumble channel!)

It’s better to view the film as a performance piece, a comedic triumph where the joke is on the rubes gullible enough to give D’Souza their money.

some quick backstory: The people behind True the Vote—Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips–have been unsuccessfully hunting the Loch Ness Monster of voter fraud for many years. After the 2016 election, Phillips claimed he “verified” that more than 3 million votes were illegally cast by “non-citizens.” Piggybacking on Phillips, Trump launched a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity” to pursue this and other claims. Chaired by Vice President Mike Pence and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the commission ultimately found no evidence of widespread voter fraud and disbanded without ever producing a report. (Since producing such a report would contradict Trump’s kooky allies.)

After the 2020 election, True the Vote sought $7 million to chase down new voter fraud stories and shop them to GOP consultants in hopes of getting some courtroom or member of Congress to take them seriously. But even in the cluster that was the Kraken #StopTheSteal show, they had no takers. It was such a disaster that one of True the Vote’s biggest donors, who gifted the organization $2.5 million, took the group to court to get his money back, citing their failed efforts.

All of which goes to say that True the Vote’s tall tales are too dumb even for its biggest supporters to go along with anymore. D’Souza, however, is happy to scrape up the bullshit and repackage it for the direct-to-consumer market.

some of the film’s funniest moments come when D’Souza summons his fellow Salem Media Group talkers—Dennis Prager, Eric Metaxes, Seb Gorka, and Charlie Kirk—for a meeting of the minds to discuss their thoughts about election fraud before and after viewing D’Souza’s movie.

The “before” meeting amounts to an assortment of pronouncements about how none of these very fine people believe that Biden won. They cite the massive turnout in the election, GOP success down-ballot, Trump’s ability to draw large crowds, and apparent popularity in the face of withering media coverage.

Kirk offers that “millions of Americans know something went wrong, and they have little pieces, and no one’s really put it together.” Prager, somewhat of an outlier in the group, says he wants someone to “show me the proof” of fraud. Which sets the stage for D’Souza to helpfully put the pieces together.

The movie draws heavy suspicions about people who dropped off ballots early in the morning, wore gloves to drop off ballots, and took photos of drop boxes. All this is drummed up as proof of nefarious activity captured on surveillance video. Coupled with the True the Vote’s geotracking data, the viewer is led to believe these were the “mules” making repeat trips to unnamed non-profit offices to collect ballots and “traffick” them to drop boxes. One problem: They have no video showing these individuals making repeat trips to said non-profits or drop locations, or evidence they were paid to do so. Also, one of the so-called “mules” presented in the film has already been investigated by Georgia officials and no evidence of wrongdoing was found.

No matter. Engelbrecht and Phillips make their presentation to the group and the guys jump on the clips accordingly. What Salem wants, Salem gets.

Questioning why someone would drop off ballots late at night or early in the morning is a common refrain, even though drop boxes were implemented precisely so voters could drop off their ballots any time they chose. For this, these unnamed individuals are depicted as dangerous people. Phillips described them as “not grandma out walking her dog.” They have “bad backgrounds, bad reputations, we’ve had encounters with several who are not terribly positive.”

“Violent guys?” D’Souza asked.

“Can be,” Phillips replied. “They are interested in one thing, that’s money.”

But even the Salem hosts seem wise to the game and acknowledge that D’Souza hasn’t, and won’t be able to prove anything.Gorka sums it up with this non sequitur: “It’s the perfect crime because it cannot be curated after it’s committed.”

Kirk says: “I don’t think we will ever know the full story and what makes this crime so compelling and unique is that once the ballot enters the system it’s really hard to reverse engineer it. But when you have the cell phone geolocation data and then the actual footage. . . it explains the sudden spike of Biden support that we saw late at night.”

At this point, all that’s left is for law enforcement to intervene. “There’s an easy way to bust it,” D’Souza says. “Law enforcement has to step in . . . go interview the mules. Who paid you? Where did you get the money?”

Which satisfies Prager enough to bellow:

“They have ruined election day in the United States of America. That’s provable, and that is enough for me to fight the left with every fiber in my body!” This counts as a conversion. But, considering the fact Prager is someone who also believes the left is destroying Western civilization,”:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"/maxresdefault.jpg),” it’s not like he needed any pretext from D’Souza to declare total war on the Democrats. That’s just a regular day at the office for the old man.

the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiroreviewed2000 Mules and said, “my problem with the documentary” is that “there are dots that need filling in.” He said:

You can question all the ballot harvesting; you can take for granted that all the geolocation data that they’re using is actually true . . . that does not mean all those ballots are illegal votes. . . . . What you need is actual evidence of people going to multiple drop boxes that isn’t just the cell phone data moving past the drop boxes. . . I guess what I would say is an answer that’s gonna make nobody happy. I think that the data is really interesting. I think that it’s really suspicious for sure, I don’t think it’s just positive that this alone shifted the election .. . I think the conclusion of the film is not justified by the premises of the film itself. There are a bunch of dots that need to be connected. Maybe they will be connected, but they haven’t been connected in the film.

But I suspect that D’Souza is delighted with even the critical reviews. A hate watch is still a watch. All the people talking and writing about 2000 Mules means more relevance and more downloads and more income. Despite being released only on “non-cancelable” platforms, D’Souza says the film has grossed $10 million.

What burns D’Souza are the people who won’t give him attention—especially those at Fox News and Newsmax. And why shouldn’t he be? The movie’s storyline, complete with a brown menace subplot, is tailor-made for their audiences. At one point in the film, a woman, who keeps her identity hidden, says she worked as a “mule” in Yuma County, Arizona, on behalf of an organization that collected ballots from Hispanic people who were unable for various reasons to get to the polls. “Most of the Hispanics that live in the town are not well educated as far as the law . . . I call it the Mexican mafia, seriously because they work like that.”

How could Fox and Newsmax resist this premium content? Probably because the executives at these infotainment companies are wary of fighting another round of lawsuits for pushing bogus election claims. Dinesh D’Souza is judgment proof. Fox and Newsmax aren’t.

Donald Trump is mad about the Fox blackout, too. He gave the film a glitzy premiere at Mar-a-Lago, and still, no love from Tucker Carlson. Waaaah.

“Fox News is no longer Fox News,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account. “They won’t even show or discuss the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time, ‘2000 Mules.’The Radical Left Democrats are thrilled – They don’t want the TRUTH to get out.”

In a way, the pairing of 2000 Mules and Truth Social is perfect: A pretend social media company doing PR for a fake documentary, with both siphoning off dollars from gullible superfans.

It would be funny if these people weren’t also the past and possible future of the United States government.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/what-2000-mules-leaves-out-from-ballot-harvesting-claims/

no lnx pix

What ‘2000 Mules’ leaves out of ballot harvesting claims

POLITICS

By Mark Niesse, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

May 10, 2022

Proof missing from Georgia videos and cellphone data

A new movie spreading suspicions of voter fraud, “2000 Mules,” shows surveillance video of Georgia voters dropping off multiple ballots.

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza says that’s a crime, suggesting that a network of unnamed “mules” rigged the presidential election for Democrat Joe Biden and against Republican Donald Trump.

Based on these unproven allegations, the documentary-style movie jumps to the conclusion that the election was stolen.

The hour and a half-long film leaves voters uninformed about precautions that help prevent mass absentee ballot fraud, instead encouraging them to believe elections were subverted by a shadowy cabal of nonprofit organizations.

The movie hinges on the theory that 2,000 people in five states, including 242 in metro Atlanta, collected and delivered multiple absentee ballots, a practice called “ballot harvesting.” Georgia law prohibits voters from delivering anyone’s ballot besides their own, with exceptions for family members and caregivers of disabled voters.

The movie "2000 Mules" includes video surveillance of a Fulton County ballot drop box that shows a man delivering ballots at night during the 2020 presidential election.

Credit: 2000 Mules

While it’s possible that some of the alleged perpetrators shown in the movie actually committed a crime, video surveillance of drop boxes alone doesn’t prove anything. Voters might have been delivering ballots for their relatives, which is allowed.

Even if there were a ballot harvesting scheme, it wouldn’t invalidate legitimate ballots just because they were turned in by unauthorized individuals. Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.

Election investigators have reviewed several videos included in “2000 Mules” and found no illegal behavior, including a video that showed a Gwinnett County man inserting ballots into a drop box, according to the secretary of state’s office.

“We investigated, and the five ballots that he turned in were all for himself and his family members,” said Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffenspergerduring a debate last week.

In the movie, D’Souza promotes allegations made by True the Vote, a Texas-based organization that gathered drop box surveillance video and cellphone location data in parts of Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. All were swing states where Biden won.

True the Vote hasn’t cooperated with Georgia’s election investigations, refusing to disclose the names of people who allegedly harvested ballots. The State Election Board issued subpoenas on the organization last month to seek documents, recordings and names of individuals involved.

The organization also doesn’t explain how ballot harvesting could have occurred.

Every absentee ballot is assigned to the voter who requested it, and voters can only cast one ballot each.

Returned ballots must be included in an envelope that includes the voter’s registration information, signature, and a bar code. Ballots delivered without an envelope aren’t counted, meaning ballot-stuffing wouldn’t work.

True the Vote claims that cellphone location records show that “mules” visited multiple drop boxes in a day, but publicly available location data often aren’t accurate enough to prove that people actually stopped at drop boxes. They could have been driving by drop boxes on busy streets as they travel to and from work.

None of the surveillance videos in the movie shows anyone visiting more than one drop box in a day.

A map of downtown Atlanta displays cellphone travel patterns, but few of them intersect with drop boxes, which were required to be located on government property such as the Fulton County Government Center.

[Explore

From AJC investigation: Five fraud claims from the Georgia 2020 election and what investigators actually found]

A map from the movie "2000 Mules" shows cellphone signals in downtown Atlanta, but most of these paths don't intersect with drop boxes or indicate ballot harvesting.

Credit: 2000 Mules

True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht said in the movie that her organization tracked cellphones that were near both drop boxes and unidentified nonprofit organizations, which she believes coordinated the ballot harvesting operation.

“What does this even mean if this is happening in broad daylight and nobody’s doing anything to stop it?” Engelbrecht said. “It won’t stop unless we stop it.”

The GBI reviewed True the Vote’s allegations last fall and found they lacked sufficient evidence to merit a law enforcement investigation.

“What has not been provided is any other kind of evidence that ties these cellphones to ballot harvesting,” wrote GBI Director Vic Reynolds in a Sept. 30 letter. “As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”

While the movie blames drop boxes for enabling ballot harvesting, it ignores the fact that multiple ballots could more easily be returned through the Post Office or home mailboxes, where there isn’t video surveillance. There’s no indication of ballot harvesting in mailed ballots during the 2020 election.

D’Souza, the filmmaker and narrator, has produced several movies and books that promote conspiracy theories and right-wing propaganda, including “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” and “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.”

D’Souza pleaded guilty to a felony campaign finance violation in 2014 for using straw donors to exceed contribution limits to a Republican candidate running for a U.S. Senate seat in New York. Trump pardoned D’Souza in 2018.

The movie, which costs $29.99 to stream online, ends with a QR code that directs voters to a website where they can donate money to True the Vote.

About the Author

ajc.com

Mark Niesse

Mark Niesse covers voting rights and elections for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He also reports on the Georgia House of Representatives and government. He has been a reporter at the AJC since 2013 following a decade at The Associated Press in Atlanta, Honolulu and Montgomery, Ala.

an 5 22

sixteen months into Joe Biden’s presidency, far-right pundit and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza continues to shamelessly promote theBig Lieand falsely claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from former President Donald Trump — a claim that the 61-year-old D’Souza makes in his new documentary “2000 Mules.” Journalist Anthony L. Fisher critiques “2000 Mules” in a scathing op-ed published by the Daily Beast on May 19, arguing that D’Souza’s documentary is so sloppy and badly done that even Fox News and Newsmax have ignored it.

“The new documentary ‘2000 Mules,’ a Dinesh D’Souza joint,is barely more credible than your average rando conspiracy theory video on YouTube, but its production values attach to it a superficial seriousness,” Fisher explains. “The film’s intended audience will see a rational ‘just asking questions’ kinda guy, D’Souza, talking with some ideological allies — like Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Sebastian Gorka and Larry Elder — who are merely concerned about voter integrity in the America they love.”

Fisher continues, “But the bulk of the film consists of D’Souza’s highly dramatized explainer sessions with a couple of technological ‘experts,’ also credited as executive producers, whose claims that they’ve used geotracking data to uncover thousands of vote-harvesting mules fall apart under the barest of scrutiny. Surveillance footage of people taking selfies after dropping their votes in dropboxes is presented as ‘A-ha!’ evidence — while ignoring the fact that people taking voter selfies was a mundanely common thing to do in 2020, and for quite a few years prior.”

According to Fisher, “2000 Mules” suffers from “relentless repetition of innuendo” and “almost no verifiable facts.”D’Souza, Fisher notes, complains about Republicans who want to move on from the 2020 election and slams them as cowards.

“D’Souza’s whining extends beyond the film itself, and into coverage of the film,” Fisher observes. “Or in the case of Fox News and Newsmax, the lack of coverage around ‘2000 Mules’ — likely because both networks have already been sued for pushing potentially slanderous Big Lie accusations against voting technology companies. D’Souza’s white knight, Donald Trump, came to the film’s defense when he slammed Fox for ignoring ‘the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time.’But even a Trump-supporting right-wing firebreather like Ben Shapiro can’t bring himself to say D’Souza made a persuasive case with ‘2000 Mules,’ because the film’s central thesis simply isn’t backed by any supporting evidence— much less an overwhelming amount of verifiable, unimpeachable data.”

Someone who doesn’t already buy into the Big Lie, Fisher stresses, won’t change their mind because of “2000 Mules.”

“The film isn’t meant to persuade anyone, it’s meant to reinforce the already passionate certainty in people who believe in something that simply does not exist,” Fisher writes. “It is a vile piece of agitprop, pushing a falsehood that could very well tear our country apart. It’s also a very stupid movie, packaged as smart, fearless muckraking. In a sense, it’s a 90-minute safe space for MAGA snowflakes who can’t accept the fact that their hero is a loser.”

oddly  every prediction about terrible things that wd happen under hillary actually happened under trump eg loss of world allies. accusation of corruption and selling out to for gov't by trump.

omfg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is a 2016 American political documentary film about 2016 American presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and a critique of the Democratic Party. The film is written and directed by conservative political commentator Dinesh D'Souza and Bruce Schooley.[2] The film had a limited release on July 15, 2016, before a wide release on July 22, 2016, and accompanies a book by D'Souza by the same name.[4][5]

The film was the top-grossing political documentary of 2016, grossing $13 million against a $5 million budget.[6][7] It was heavily panned by critics; review aggregation website Metacritic declared it the worst-received film of 2016. It was nominated for five Golden Raspberry Awards, and won four, including Worst Picture (a first for a documentary film), as well as Worst Director and Worst Actor for D'Souza.[8][5]. The film, however, was given an 80% by audiences, and universally noted as both an accurate and interesting film which shows history from a different viewpoint. [9]

Background

Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative author and commentator who co-directed Hillary's America, is known for also directing 2016: Obama's America (2012), which criticized incumbent president Barack Obama during the 2012 presidential election,[10] and America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014) arguing against liberal critiques of its history, including the theft of Native American and Mexican lands, black slavery, contemporary foreign policy, and its capitalist system.[11]

Synopsis

The film begins with scenes of D'Souza at the halfway house where he spent time due to a conviction for making an illegal political contribution. The film then switches to examining and criticizing the history of the Democratic Party, from Andrew Jackson to the present day. D'Souza is portrayed going into a basement archive of the DNC Headquarters where he reveals secrets of the party's history.

The film offers an interpretation of the origins of the Democratic Party in a brief outline, then examines the racism of one of its founders, President Andrew Jackson. It goes on to describe how Jackson and the Democratic Party passed legislation that brutally expelled Native Americans from their land and created the reservation system. This is followed by a political analysis of the historical record of the Democratic Party in the North and South in supporting and defending the institution of slavery, and ensuring its spread into the western territories. It examines the founding of the Republican Party which D'Souza personally suggests was a reaction to the support of slavery by the Democratic Party and their endorsement and defense of fugitive slave laws.

The film then argues the Democratic Party opposed the Reconstruction Amendments to the United States Constitution. The film argues that the Democratic Party had close ties to the Ku Klux Klan in the 19th and 20th centuries, including the accusation that Democratic President Woodrow Wilson supported the KKK and racial segregation, opposed anti-lynching legislation, manipulated New Deal legislation in the 1930s to keep African Americans from benefiting, and opposed civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

The film also examines the validity of the common argument made by leaders of the Democratic Party that the parties "switched positions", with the Democratic Party becoming progressive and Southern racists becoming Republicans, which it rebuts by arguing that fewer than 1 percent of Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights legislation changed parties.

The film examines the record of the Democratic Party in its use of social welfare programs and machine politics, particularly in urban areas, to create what has been described as a new plantation system, enabling the Democratic Party to exploit and coerce residents. The film then describes the rise and activities of radicals such as Saul Alinsky, who D'Souza believes affected both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton greatly. The film proceeds to examine and criticize the actions of Clinton, questioning her ethics, honesty, and motivations.[12][13] In a post-credits scene, Dinesh D'Souza appears in front of a classroom, saying "So how will you know when you have become an American? You'll know, when you become a Republican", followed by an applause by the students in the classroom.[14]

Interviews

D'Souza presents various interviews in the film, including:[15][better source needed]

Release

Hillary's America had a limited release on July 15, 2016, playing in three theaters in Dallas, Houston, and Phoenix, and making a box office of $77,500.[16] The success of the film during that period was described as "massively frontloaded" because it made about $41,000 on the first day.[16] On July 22, 2016, Hillary's America got a nationwide expansion,[16][17] entering 1,217 theaters.[3] This date fell between the end of the 2016 Republican National Convention and the beginning of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[10] On its opening weekend, the film's box office was $3.7 million, in the top ten that weekend.[10][18] On July 23, 2016,Larry Gatlin and the Gatlin Brothers released the music video "Stand Up and Say So (Hillary's America)", a song they wrote and performed for the film.[19]

Reception

Box office

Hillary's America: The Secret of the Democratic Party became the highest grossing documentary of 2016 and the 20th-highest domestically of all-time, grossing $13.1 million at the box office.[6] In its opening weekend of wide release it grossed $4 million, finishing 9th at the box office.[3]

Critical response

On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4% based on 28 reviews, and an average rating of 1.7/10. The site's critics consensus reads, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party finds Dinesh D'Souza once again preaching to the right-wing choir – albeit less effectively than ever."[20] On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 2 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".[21] The film has the second all-time lowest score in the site's history, after six films(The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, Bio-Dome, The Singing Forest, Chaos, United Passions and Death of a Nation (also directed by D'Souza)) tied with a score of 1.[22]

Alan Zilberman's Washington Post review calls the documentary "too incoherent for argument" and boring, its only redeeming moments being unintentional comedy,[12] while Glenn Kenny wrote in the New York Times that it's a masterpiece if the criterium for evaluation were "the extent to which it communicates the personality and character of its director."[23]

In a review for IndieWire, film critic David Ehrlich wrote, "This is the same old dog and pony show upon which D’Souza has built his brand. It’s his usual shtick of piggybacking a baseless personal attack onto a pseudo history lesson, a feature-length dog whistle that’s blown at a pitch so high that only the most ignorant or paranoid of people are capable of hearing it."[24]

 Writing in The Guardian, Jordan Hoffman described the film as "paranoid" and "so demented that no synopsis could do it justice" and D'Souza as a "simpleton". He goes on to say that the basis of the film, the "purposely misunderstood fact" that "the Republicans used to be the good guys when it came to the issue of racial equality in America" is as surprising a discovery as the Soviet Union being an ally of the United States in World War II because: "things change, and labels are semantics, and the concepts that bind a political party then might not be the same ones that bind them now."[25] 

Dann Gire of the Boston Herald called the film "an embarrassment to propaganda films", full of "mind-boggling conspiracy theories" and "fried thoughts and lapses of basic journalistic practices".[26]

Alex Shephard of The New Republic said: "Because he is a very dumb man, D’Souza doesn’t even make a credible argument that Bill and Hillary are corrupt, even though in many ways it’s low-hanging fruit. Instead, like every fringe weirdo who comes after the Clintons does, he overreaches and invents an absurd conspiracy ... It’s not enough for, say, the Clinton Foundation to have taken money from, say, Saudi Arabia—instead, Clinton is literally presented as selling America to foreign countries. Why? D’Souza never explains."[27]

Kurt Hyde of the John Birch Society publication The New American called the film "a mixed bag", stating that, among other reasons, although "parts of the movie were well-researched, the accounts of numerous other events, especially those more than 100 years in the past could have been researched more thoroughly" and that "[t]here isn't any great difference between the two parties", contrary to what the film claimed.[28] John Fund of **National Review** stated that "[the film] is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie [and that] the film is intensely patriotic".[13]

Accolades

AwardCategoryRecipient(s)ResultRef.

Golden Raspberry Awards

(37th)

Worst PictureGerald R. MolenWon[29][30]
Worst DirectorDinesh D’Souza and Bruce SchooleyWonWonWon
Worst ScreenplayNominatedNominatedNominatedNominated
Worst ActorDinesh D’Souza (as himself)WonWonWon
Worst ActressThe "Actress" Who Played Hillary Clinton (Mikaela Krantz and Rebekah Turner)WonWonWon

In response to the Golden Raspberry Awards nominations, D'Souza stated that he was "actually quite honored" and called the nominations "petty revenge" in response to Trump's election and that "the film might have played an important role in the election."[31] After learning his film had won four of its five nominations, D'Souza recorded a short video accepting the awards, and repeating his view that he won because Razzie members were upset over Trump's election victory.[30]

Other

On July 23, 2016, Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee (and eventual victor) against Clinton, called on supporters to see the film.[10]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Hillary's America: The Secret of the Democratic Party (12)". British Board of Film Classification. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
  2. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-auto_2-1) Johnson, Ted (March 22, 2016). "Coming Soon to Campaign Season: The Anti-Hillary Movie". Variety. Retrieved July 17, 2016.
  3. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-BOM_3-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-BOM_3-2) *Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party* at Box Office Mojo
  4. ^ D'Souza, Dinesh (July 22, 2016). "Dinesh D'Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party". Fox News. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  5. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-auto1_5-1) d'Souza, Dinesh (July 18, 2016). Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party. ISBN 978-1621573470.
  6. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Top-grossing_6-1) "Box Office: Dinesh D'Souza's 'Hillary's America' Becomes Top-Grossing Doc of 2016". July 27, 2016.
  7. ^ "Documentary Political". boxofficemojo.com. Retrieved March 11, 2016.
  8. ^ "CNN/FB Live Coverage Razzie 37th Nominees!". CNN. January 23, 2017. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
  9. ^ https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hillarys_america_the_secret_history_of_the_democratic_party. {{cite web}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Top10_10-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Top10_10-2) d(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Top10_10-3) Bryan, Alexander (July 24, 2016). ":{'Hillary's America' Documentary Cracks Top 10 at Box Office":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. USA Today. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  11. ^ "Synopsis". Americaintheaters.com. Retrieved January 19, 2015.
  12. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Zilberman_12-1) Zilberman, Alan (July 21, 2016). ":{'Hillary's America' Travels Through Time and Finds the Democratic Party to Blame":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. The Washington Post. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  13. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Fund_13-1) Fund, John (July 18, 2016). "Hillary's America — A Two-by-Four Bashing Democrats". National Review. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
  14. ^ ":{'Hillary's America' Review: Dinesh D'Souza Indulges in More Confirmation Bias":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. The Wrap. Retrieved July 15, 2016.
  15. ^ *Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party* at IMDb
  16. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Forbes_16-1) c(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-Forbes_16-2) Mendelson, Scott. "Box Office: 'Hillary's America' And 'Cafe Society' Do Big Limited Release Business". Forbes. Retrieved July 23, 2016.
  17. ^ "D'Souza Offers a Look Inside Hillary's America". Trunews.com. July 20, 2016. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
  18. ^ Brevet, Brad (July 24, 2016). ":{'Star Trek Beyond' Debuts at #1, 'Lights Out' Opens Strong and 'Ice Age 5' Bombs":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  19. ^ Bond, Raul (July 23, 2016). "Dinesh D'Souza Drops Music Video for 'Hillary's America' Doc Ahead of the DNC". Billboard. Retrieved July 31, 2016.
  20. ^ *Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party* at Rotten Tomatoes
  21. ^ Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party at Metacritic
  22. ^ "Best Movies of All Time". Metacritic. Retrieved July 25, 2016.
  23. ^ Kenny, Glenn (July 21, 2016). "Review: In 'Hillary's America,' Dinesh D'Souza Warns of a Plan to 'Steal' the Country". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2016.
  24. ^ Ehrlich, David (July 19, 2016). "Hillary's America Review: New Dinesh D'Souza Doc Is Impossibly Stupid". IndieWire. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
  25. ^ Hoffman, Jordan (July 18, 2016). "Hillary's America Review – Dinesh D'Souza Says: Beware Racist Democrat Super-Villains". The Guardian. Retrieved July 21, 2016.
  26. ^ Gire, Dann (July 21, 2016). "Filmmaker juggles mind-boggling conspiracy theories in 'Hillary's America':{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:. Boston Herald. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  27. ^ Shephard, Alex; Silverman, Jacob (August 5, 2016). "How Bad Is Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America? A Conversation". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
  28. ^ Hyde, Kurt (July 18, 2016). ":{"Hillary's America — The Secret History of the Democratic Party" Is a Mixed Bag":(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. The New American. Retrieved July 26, 2016.
  29. ^ "Razzie Awards 2017: Full list of nominations led by 'Zoolander 2':{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}:. Goldderby. January 23, 2017. Retrieved January 23, 2017.
  30. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="user-select:none;top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important"):}:^a b(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary%27s_America:_The_Secret_History_of_the_Democratic_Party#cite_ref-RazzieWinners_30-1) Romano, Nick (February 25, 2017). "Batman v Superman, Hillary's America top 2017 Razzies". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved February 25, 2017.
  31. ^ Alexander, Bryan (January 23, 2017). ":{'Hillary's America' Director D'Souza Calls 5 Razzie Noms 'Petty Revenge':{":(style="padding-right:0.2em"):}::(style="padding-left:0.2em"):}:. USA Today. Retrieved January 24, 2017.

External links

show

<ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" line-height="line-height" inherit="inherit"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><li class="nv-view" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dinesh_D%27Souza" title="Template:Dinesh D'Souza" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="View this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">v</abbr></a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li class="nv-talk" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza" title="Template talk:Dinesh D'Souza" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Dinesh_D%27Souza&action=edit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none !important; padding: 0px !important;"><abbr title="Edit this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">e</abbr></a></li></ul>

Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza

show

<ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" display="display" inline-block="inline-block" white-space="white-space" nowrap="nowrap" line-height="line-height" inherit="inherit"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font><li class="nv-view" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Golden_Raspberry_Award_for_Worst_Picture" title="Template:Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="View this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">v</abbr></a></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></li><li class="nv-talk" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Golden_Raspberry_Award_for_Worst_Picture" title="Template talk:Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><abbr title="Discuss this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">t</abbr></a></li><li class="nv-edit" style="margin: 0px; display: inline; word-spacing: -0.125em;"><a class="external text" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Raspberry_Award_for_Worst_Picture&action=edit" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none !important; padding: 0px !important;"><abbr title="Edit this template" style="border: none; cursor: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; background: none transparent; box-shadow: none; padding: 0px;">e</abbr></a></li></ul>

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

Categories: 

2x?

==

moving pict inst?

--

amazing poster downloaded exorcist blatty "terrifying"

kelly file fox (obama film because he was unknown)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4921678627001/dinesh-dsouza-previews-upcoming-film-hillarys-america/#sp=show-clips

==

Dinesh D'Souza ... 

Himself

Jonah Goldberg Jonah Goldberg ... 

Himself

Andrea Cohen Andrea Cohen ... 

Margaret Sanger

Peter Schweizer Peter Schweizer ... 

Himself

Mikaela Krantz Mikaela Krantz ... 

Young Hillary Clinton

Carol Swain Carol Swain ... 

Herself

Rebekah Turner Rebekah Turner ... 

Hillary Clinton

Jayvaugn Brown Jayvaugn Brown ... 

Young Barack Obama

Richard L. Olsen Richard L. Olsen ... 

Sen. Charles Sumner

Stuart Glass Stuart Glass ... 

Saul Alinsky

Marc Jeffreys Marc Jeffreys ... 

Frank Nitti

Michael Clemmons Michael Clemmons ... 

President Barack Obama

Howard Goldwaite Howard Goldwaite ... 

President Andrew Jackson

Stephen Loftin Stephen Loftin ... 

Young Saul Alinsky

Gidget Taylor Gidget Taylor ... 

Ida B. Wells (as Alesia Gidget Taylor)

Hillary’s America starts with a lounge pianist’s come-on: “You can always count on the Democratic party.” A sickly looking donkey puppet drops down and grotesquely dangles from the ceiling as a big band launches into “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Animated opening credits hint at the eras and topics Hillary’s America will touch upon: the Chicago mob during Prohibition, the Civil War, Barack Obama on some college campus in activist mode. How will these seemingly unrelated images be drawn together into a sustained attack on the Democratic party? That’s not any clearer by the end of Hillary’s America; as in his first two films, conservative polemicist Dinesh D’Souza (co-directing with longtime collaboratorBruce Schooley, who he met 17 years ago on a National Review cruise) presents a series of conspiratorial talking points familiar to Breitbart-oriented readers, but reshuffled in a new, startlingly illogical order.

In D’Souza’s previous film, America, he “disproved” five charges against America’s greatness, proving to his satisfaction that racism et al. were false targets of no lasting concern. The film climaxed with a bonus segment showing the first meeting between Hillary Clinton and community organizer/conservative bogeyman Saul Alinsky in a cafeteria shot through with blood-red light, visually rendering the latter as Satan.

Hillary’s America is a sort of double feature that picks up from there. Its first half is meant to make the case that the party of Lincoln is still the party of Lincoln and that Democrats are the true racists; its back half goes specifically after the presumptive Democratic candidate. The purely rhetorical argument that the “party of Lincoln” hasn’t wavered in character isn’t new; in 2013, continuing a newish post-federal election tradition, Rand Paul became the latest Republican to speak at Howard University to make that case to a crowd rightly skeptical of the idea that the GOP post-Nixon can claim legitimate continuity with its own past. Repetition of this facile argument is key, down to a speech given here by a pre-Civil War Republican: “We, the Republicans, are against slavery, and the Democrats are for slavery.”

The segments on slavery are vile, diving with no compunction into close-ups of black people being whipped and a selection of racist violence. These are still tough things to stage and watch, even when badly done; that Hillary’s America does so for no greater purpose other than, effectively, urging the election of Donald Trump speaks wretchedly of all involved. D’Souza undermines his putatively good intentions with a loud dog whistle when he repeatedly refers to slavery as “theft” and points out the story of one slave (owned by a Democrat, of course) punished for selling wares on the side. Entrepreneurial pluck, D’Souza is implying, was punished by Democrats from the get-go—they want to stop black folks from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and laziness has set in as a result. This is talking-points business as usual, in which any sign of a welfare state is in fact the manifestation of the “liberal plantation”—the real reason Democrats still enslave black voters, D’Souza says, and an argument he doesn’t bother to develop any further, its salience being already self-evident to target viewers.

Other images from D’Souza’s freewheeling parade through American history are comically grotesque, the sustained attack on Hillary Clinton a fever dream. A shot of Bill and spouse dancing and raising champagne flutes in the White House to celebrate some ghastly coup is entirely typical of D’Souza’s perspective: just shy of conspiracy theories about mysterious deaths and drug deals, but still safely in the realm of malignant fantasy. To reiterate the old canard thatMargaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people, he stages her giving a speech on a porch deck, with a row of hooded KKK members sitting blithely before her. Sanger did indeed address the Klan—she’d speak with any organization receptive to learning about birth control—but it’s hardly a defining moment of her career; for D’Souza to stage this segment as a sinister extended tableau slides straight into a kind of Adult Swim absurdism, in which shots of an inadequate, orating Abraham Lincoln (Don Taylor) are assigned the same weight and importance in American history.

Taylor is a returning performer from America, a lanky void whose presence points to certain constants within the D’Souza Connected Universe: staggeringly unexciting talking-head interviews (give it up for the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg!); historical figures delivering long, oft-implausible harangues against cable-level backdrops; and—slightly less expected—musical numbers. In a presumable attempt to reclaim rock renditions of the National Anthem from the notedly unconservative Jimi Hendrix, America had an end credits rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” from all-in conservative Dave Mustaine. Hillary’s America ends with no less than three songs: “God Bless America” (sung by Debbie, D’Souza’s new wife), the national anthem once again, and an end credits song from the Gatlin brothers, the former two accompanied by montages of stock “American” imagery in a limited historical pocket—brave Revolutionary soldiers bouncing on horses, fireworks, etc.

That a film already busy with historical reenactments, interviews, and conspiracizing of the wildest sort should end with three consecutive musical numbers suggests a kind of vaudeville structure to D’Souza’s work. As the MC of this show, D’Souza places himself in the unwise position of sometimes having to act: The film’s prologue finds him incarcerated in a detention house, where a charismatic inmate, Roc (Corey Cotten), explains for him how crime works, and how the government is the biggest criminal of all. D’Souza’s facial expression never varies from sour nonplussed; complex emotions aren’t a possibility. There is a shot in one of the final montages, amid all the farms and fields, of D’Souza standing in a sunset-lit prairie, looking like a Terrence Malick outtake. This determinedly uncharismatic figure has now made himself the star of three consistently lunatic productions; this attempt to give himself a moment of poetry is one of Hillary’s America’s final and biggest inadvertent laughs.

==

Hillary’s America — A Two-by-Four Bashing Democrats

D’Souza links progressives’ sordid, racist past to the Clintons’ current corruption.

By John Fund — July 18, 2016

Dinesh D’Souza, the social commentator who shook up Hollywood with the $33 million earned by his Obama 2016 film, is back with Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

The film is his response to constant Democratic attacks on Republicans as racist, greedy, and callous toward minority interests. Hillary’s America takes a two-by-four to the racist, greedy, and callous episodes in the Democratic party’s past. He then links this history to Hillary Clinton’s progressive values and to her tutelage under radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.[gop bigger fans/implementors?]

It is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie. The film is intensely patriotic, and D’Souza told me at the movie’s premiere at the GOP convention in Cleveland that it is a must-see for Americans. He believes Democrats this election year are trying to — in President Obama’s words — “fundamentally transform” America into something the Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize.

This isn’t just rhetorical overkill. Glenn Thrush reported this week in Politico on Obama’s agenda in the waning days of his presidency:

Obama’s ultimate goal in his final year has been strikingly ambitious, according to those I spoke with: not only blocking from office the birther who questioned his legitimacy as president, but preserving the Democratic Party’s hold over the presidency during an era of anti-establishment turbulence. Obama, always one to embrace a grand goal, talks in terms of creating “a 16-year era of progressive rule” to rival the achievements of Roosevelt-Truman and to reorient the country’s politics as a “Reagan of the left,” as one of his longtime White House advisers put it to me.

In 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations in a case that may well have involved selective prosecution. He donated $20,000 to a Republican friend from Dartmouth, Wendy Long, who was running a sure-to-lose senatorial campaign against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, though he never told Long he’d donated the money and he received nothing in return. D’Souza told me that his searing eight-month experience in a federal halfway house led him to draw his own conclusions about the ultimate goal of Hillary and Obama.

The film re-creates what he said he learned in federal “public housing.” He established a rapport with some of the thugs and con artists there and asked them how the gangs to which they belonged consolidated power. A fellow inmate named Rock told him that the con games the gangs practice involve promising people something for nothing, then cheating them while at the same time making them dependent on the gangs for protection. This eerily resembled the way the Democratic machines operated, D’Souza realized. But Democrats also had a broader ideological agenda: “What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing this world ever produced?” That would be the republic the Founding Fathers have handed down to us.

The film then shows D’Souza leaving his confinement and researching the history and methods of the Democratic party. In the film’s least convincing re-created scenes, he visits “Democratic Headquarters” and sneaks his way into a basement records room adorned by a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the openly racist president who was the founder of the Democratic party. While rummaging through the secrets of the records room, D’Souza learns that Jackson’s expulsion of the Indians to reservations in the 1830s was opposed by Republican congressman Davy Crockett; that northern Democrats were instrumental to slavery’s survival in the pre–Civil War era; that Democrats after the war voted against civil rights for blacks at the federal level; and that, after losing that fight, they managed to impose Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South.

RELATED: How the Clintons Got Rich Off of Poor Haitians]

D’Souza then shifts his research to the office of Carol Swain, a black law professor at Vanderbilt University, who is a scholar of Democratic-party history. Swain is soft-spoken but devastating in her recitation of the facts. “It’s a sordid story,” she told me at the Cleveland premiere of the film. “Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.” She tells the story of Ida B. Wells, a brave black journalist who fought lynchings and challenged President Woodrow Wilson in the White House over his racist resegregation of the federal work force. Wilson ignored her entreaties and proceeded to host a White House screening of D. W. Griffith’s infamous film Birth of a Nation.

Hillary’s America also explores Franklin Roosevelt’s decision not to pursue anti-lynching laws and notes that it was Democrats who tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congressional Republicans supported it in greater percentages than Democrats did. D’Souza takes on the defense that modern Democrats typically call forth when confronted with their party’s racist roots: They claim that the two parties reversed positions on race, with northern Democrats becoming more progressive and southern Democrats simply becoming Republicans. Onetime segregationist Strom Thurmond did switch parties, D’Souza concedes, but he notes the fact that fewer than 1 percent of Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights followed Thurmond in joining the GOP. The rest remained Democrats until they exited politics.

D’Souza then extensively interviews National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, asking him about the connections he has drawn — in his book Liberal Fascismand elsewhere — between the Democratic party, Wilson, and birth-control advocate and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (the film shows Hillary Clinton lavishly praising Sanger). Goldberg was at the movie’s premiere and noted that it will no doubt receive abundant criticism. “You get the most flak when you are over the target,” he told the audience, to great cheering.

The film then takes a rather abrupt turn from history to focus on Hillary Clinton. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he notes, were acolytes of the great left-wing “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. D’Souza is the first filmmaker to mine the rich material showing the radicalism of Alinksy, who was personally tutored by Al Capone’s deputies in the tactics of the mob and whose most famous book, Rules for Radicals, begins with this epigraph to the most famous Machiavellian:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

In Hillary’s America, the young Rodham is shown as she’s led from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” into campus radicalism through meetings with Alinsky. Later, she would use her senior thesis at Wellesley to paint an admiring portrait of Alinsky. In a meeting with Alinsky, she chastises him for trying to pressure the establishment only from the outside, saying that some of his followers need to take over the government: “Then we can push from the inside.” But Hillary’s success on the “inside” seems to have brought her and her Clinton Foundation tens of millions in personal wealth rather than any substantive policy accomplishments.

The film then plunges into what it calls the more troubling aspects of the “Clinton partnership,” portraying Bill Clinton as a sexual predator surrounded by women in black dresses slinking out of cars and hotels. The real red meat comes as Hillary is portrayed as throwing things around the White House and generally enabling Bill’s behavior, which possibly includes rape. D’Souza ends his roasting of Hillary by denouncing her for her “hateful rhetoric” and labeling the Clintons “depraved crooks” who will “turn all of America into a plantation” if they get back in the White House.

RELATED: The Dirty Business of the Billary Machine, Again

At this point the film is definitely downbeat, but in ends with a stirring rendition of patriotic songs, beautiful shots of patriotic themes, and an original song from the Gatlin Brothers. The audience that streamed out of the Cleveland premiere felt energized rather than depressed by the film. Bob Unruh, a relative of the legendary California Democratic boss Jesse Unruh, told me: “The movie told it like it is. Machine rule is at the heart of the modern Democrats.” Several viewers said they took away the message that America is worth saving, and that we have the tools to do so in our DNA, if only we have a large voter turnout in November.

The intenselyanti-PC message of Hillary’s America obviously means it will be savaged by critics and ignored by much of the news media. Peter Sobczynski, a film critic writing at Roger Ebert’s site said that it “may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life — nearly two hours of poisonous bluster and anti-historical rhetoric.”

Of course, Sobczynski doesn’t like the film’s politics, and they certainly aren’t weak tea. Parts of Hillary’s America verge on demagoguery. But the dictionary definition of demagoguery describes it as the methods used to “appeal to popular desires and prejudices.” Hillary’s America won’t change long-settled opinions about Hillary, but it will probably raise doubts in the minds of independent voters who see it. As for the base of conservative Americans, the movie will inspire them to get to the polls in November, despite the flaws of Donald Trump.

— John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

==

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

jane che

IF THE OLIN FOUNDATION was less than transparent about its mission, it was not for the first time. Between 1958 and 1966, it secretly served as a bank for the Central Intelligence Agency. During these eight years, the CIA laundered $1.95 million through the foundation. Olin, according to Miller, regarded his undercover role as part of his patriotic duty. Many of the government funds went to anti-Communist intellectuals and publications. But in 1967, the press exposed the covert propaganda operation, triggering a political furor and causing the CIA to fold the program. The CIA money at the Olin foundation, which was not publicized at the time, disappeared as quietly as it had arrived. The idea of using the private foundation to fund ideologically aligned intellectuals, however, persisted.

The Olin foundation invested in William F. Buckley Jr., whose television show, Firing Line, the foundation supported. It also funded Allan Bloom, author of the best-selling slam from the right at American higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (in which Bloom also lashed out at rock music as a "nonstop, commercially prepackaged masturbation fantasy"). The foundation also supported Dinesh D'Souza, author of Illiberal Education, which blasted "political correctness," castigating rules requiring sensitivity to women and minorities as the overreaching of liberal thought police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinesh_D%27Souza

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza (/:{dɪˈnɛʃ:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}::{ :(style="white-space:normal"):}::{dəˈsuːzə:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}:/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-American right-wing[2][3][4] political commentator, provocateur, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist.[16] D'Souza has written over a dozen books, several of them *New York Times* best-sellers.[17][18]

In 2012, D'Souza released the documentary film 2016: Obama's America, an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage; it earned $33 million, making it the highest-grossing conservative documentary of all time and one of the highest-grossing documentaries of any kind.[19][20] He has since released four other documentary films: America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014), Hillary's America (2016), Death of a Nation (2018), and Trump Card (2020). D'Souza's films and commentary have generated considerable controversy due to their promotion of conspiracy theories and falsehoods,[25] as well as for their incendiary nature.[17]

Born in Bombay, D'Souza moved to the United States as an exchange student and graduated from Dartmouth College. He became a naturalized citizen in 1991. From 2010 to 2012, he was president of The King's College, a Christian school in New York City until he resigned after an alleged adultery scandal.[26]

In 2012, D’Souza contributed $10,000 to the senate campaign of Wendy Long on behalf of himself and his wife, agreeing in writing to attribute that contribution as $5,000 from his wife and $5,000 from him. He directed two other people to give Long a total of $20,000 additional, which he agreed to reimburse, and later did. At the time, the Election Act limited campaign contributions to $5,000 from any individual to any one candidate. Two years later, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make the illegal campaign contribution.[27][28] He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine.[29][30] In 2018, D'Souza was issued a pardon by President Donald Trump.[31]

:{

}:

The End of Racism

2.1.2 What's So Great About America

2.1.3 The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11

2.1.4 The Roots of Obama's Rage

2.1.5 America: Imagine the World Without Her

2.1.6 The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

2.1.7 Christian apologetics series

2.2 Filmmaking

2.2.1 2016: Obama's America film (2012)

2.2.2 America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)

2.2.3 Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)

2.2.4 Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time?

Early life and career

D'Souza greetingPresident Ronald Reagan in 1988

Dinesh Joseph D'Souza[32] was born in Bombay in 1961. D'Souza grew up in a middle-class family; his parents were Roman Catholics from the state of Goa in Western India, where his father was an executive with Johnson & Johnson and his mother was a housewife.[33][34][35] D'Souza attended the Jesuit St. Stanislaus High School in Bombay.[36] He graduated in 1976 and completed his 11th and 12th years at Sydenham College, also in Bombay.[37] In 1978, D'Souza became a foreign exchange student and traveled to the United States under the Rotary Youth Exchange and attended the local public school in Patagonia, Arizona. He went on to matriculate at Dartmouth College, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in English in 1983 and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa.[38] While at Dartmouth, D'Souza wrote for The Dartmouth Review, an independent, student-edited, alumni and Collegiate Network subsidized publication.[39] D'Souza faced criticism during his time at the Review for authoring an article publicly outing homosexual members of the school's Gay Straight Alliance student organization.[40][41]

After graduating from Dartmouth, D'Souza became the editor of a monthly journal called The Prospect, a publication financed by a group of Princeton University alumni. The paper and its writers ignited much controversy during D'Souza's editorship by, among other things, criticizing the college's affirmative action policies.[42]

From 1985 to 1987, D'Souza was a contributing editor for Policy Review, a journal then published by The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. In a September 1985 article titled "The Bishops as Pawns," D'Souza theorized that Catholic bishops in the United States were being manipulated by American liberals in agreeing to oppose the U.S. military buildup and use of power abroad when, D'Souza believed, they knew very little about these subjects to which they were lending their religious credibility.[43]

D'Souza was a policy adviser in the administration of President Ronald Reagan.[44][45] He has been affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.[45][46]

In 1991, D'Souza became a naturalized United States citizen.[47]

Career as author, political commentator, and filmmaker

Authorship

The End of Racism

In 1995 D'Souza published The End of Racism, in which he claimed that exaggerated claims of racism are holding back progress among African Americans in the US; he defended the Southern slave owner, and said that "The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well".[48] D'Souza also called for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and argued: "Given the intensity of black rage and its appeal to a wide constituency, whites are right to be nervous. Black rage is a response to black suffering and failure, and reflects the irresistible temptation to attribute African American problems to a history of white racist oppression."[49]

A reviewer for The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education responded to the book by posting a list of sixteen recent racist incidents against black people.[50] Michael Bérubé, in a lengthy review article, referred to the book as "encyclopedic pseudoscience", calling it illogical and saying some of the book's policy recommendations are fascist; he stated that it is "so egregious an affront to human decency as to set a new and sorry standard for 'intellectual'".[51]

The book was panned by many other critics as well: John David Smith, in The Journal of Southern History, said D'Souza claims blacks are inferior and opines that "D'Souza bases his terribly insensitive, reactionary polemic on sound bite statistical and historical evidence, frequently gleaned out of context and patched together illogically. His book is flawed because he ignores the complex causes and severity of white racism, misrepresents Boas's arguments, and undervalues the matrix of ignorance, fear, and long-term economic inequality that he dubs black cultural pathology. How, according to his own logic, can allegedly inferior people uplift themselves without government assistance", adding that D'Souza's "biased diatribe trivializes serious pathologies, white and black, and adds little to our understanding of America's painful racial dilemma".[52]

Paul Finkelman commented on D'Souza's trivialization of racism, and said, in a review article called "The Rise of the New Racism", that much of what D'Souza says is untrue, and much is only partially true, and described the book as being "like a parody of scholarship, where selected 'facts' are pulled out of any recognizable context, and used to support a particular viewpoint". In Finkelman's opinion, the book exemplifies a "new racism", which "(1) denies the history of racial oppression in America; (2) rejects biological racism in favor of an attack on black culture; and (3) supports formal, de jure equality in order to attack civil rights laws that prohibit private discrimination and in order to undermine any public policies that might monitor equality and give it substantive meaning".[53] The conservative black economist Glenn Loury severed his ties with the American Enterprise Institute over the organization's role in the publication of the book. Loury wrote that the book "violated canons of civility and commonality", with D'Souza "determined to place poor, urban blacks outside the orbit of American civilization."[54][55]

What's So Great About America

In the second chapter of his 2002 book, What's So Great About America, D'Souza argues that while colonialism was terrible, it had the unintended consequence of lifting third world countries up to Western civilization. D'Souza writes, "I realize that in saying these things I am opening the door for my critics, and the incorrigible enemies of the West, to say that I am justifying colonialism ... This is the purest nonsense. What I am doing is pointing out a historical fact: despite the corrupt and self-serving motives of [its] practitioners ... colonialism ... proved to be the mechanism that brought millions of nonwhite people into the orbit of Western freedom." He holds up the European colonization of India as an example, arguing that in the long run colonization was beneficial for India, because it introduced Western law, universities, infrastructure, and the like, while effectively ending human sacrifice, the practice of *Sati*, and other "charming indigenous customs".[56]

In a review of the book, economist Thomas Sowell wrote that D'Souza's book exposed the fallacies and hypocrisies of various criticisms of the United States by the Islamic world, "domestic multiculturalist cults," those who seek reparations for slavery, and the worldwide intelligentsia. According to Sowell: "Perhaps it takes somebody from outside to truly appreciate all the blessings that too many native-born Americans take for granted. D'Souza understands how rare—sometimes unique—these blessings are."[57] Sowell also wrote that D'Souza challenges the notion that all world cultures are equal: "D'Souza challenges one of the central premises of today's intelligentsia: The equality of all cultures. 'If one begins with the multicultural premise that all cultures are equal, then the world as it is makes very little sense,' he says. Some cultures have completely outperformed others in providing the things that all people seek—health, food, housing, security, and the amenities of life."[57]

The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11

In early 2007, D'Souza published The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he argues that the American cultural left was in large part responsible for the Muslim anger that led to the September 11 attacks.[58] He argues that Muslims do not hate America because of its freedom and democracy, but because they perceive America to be imposing its moral depravity (support for sexual licentiousness) on the world.[59] D'Souza also argues that the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse was a result of "the sexual immodesty of liberal America", and asserts that the conditions of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay "are comparable to the accommodations in mid-level Middle Eastern hotels."[60]

The book was criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and described as, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11"[61] and "a national disgrace".[62] Michiko Kakutani in The New York Times described it as "a nasty stewpot of intellectually untenable premises and irresponsible speculation that frequently reads like a Saturday Night Live parody of the crackpot right."[60]

D'Souza's book caused controversy in the conservative movement. His conservative critics widely mocked his thesis that the cultural left was responsible for 9/11. In response, D'Souza posted a 6,500-word essay on National Review Online,[63] and NRO subsequently published a litany of responses from conservative authors who accused D'Souza of character assassination, elitism and pseudo-intellectualism.[64]

The Roots of Obama's Rage

The September 2010 book by D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage (published in condensed form in a September 2010 Forbes op-ed), interprets President Barack Obama's past and how it formed his beliefs. D'Souza states that Obama is "living out his father's dream", so that "[i]ncredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s", who, D'Souza goes on to describe as a "philandering, inebriated African socialist".[65] The book appeared on *The New York Times* Best Seller list for four weeks in October–November 2010.[18]

Ryan Chittum, in an article in the **Columbia Journalism Review**,described the Forbes article as "afact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia ... the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work".[66] Commentators on both the right and left strongly disputed assertions made about Obama in the book and article. The left-leaning Media Matters for America wrote that "The Roots of Obama's Rage [was] rooted in lies".[67] Daniel Larison of The American Conservative stated: "Dinesh D'Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written ... All in all, D'Souza's article reads like a bad conspiracy theory."[68] Larison criticized D'Souza's suggestion that Obama is anti-business, citing a lack of evidence. Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard wrote, "D'Souza always sees absence of evidence as evidence of something or other ... There is, indeed, a name for the beliefs that motivate President Obama, but it's not anticolonialism; it's not even socialism. It's liberalism!"[69] The magazine published D'Souza's letter, in which he expressed surprise "at the petty, vindictive tone of Andrew Ferguson's review".[70]

America: Imagine the World Without Her

D'Souza wrote the book America: Imagine the World Without Her on which his 2014 film of the same name is based. When the warehouse club Costco pulled the book from its shelves shortly before the film's release, conservative media and fans on social media criticized the move. Costco said it pulled the book due to low sales. D'Souza disputed the explanation, saying the book had only been out a few weeks and had surged to #1 on Amazon.com, while Costco stocked hundreds of much lower-selling books. He and other conservatives asserted it was pulled because one of Costco's co-founders, James Sinegal, supported Obama's politics.[71][72] Costco reordered the book and cited the documentary's release and related interest for the reorder.[73]

The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left

In July 2017, D'Souza published The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. In the book, D'Souza asserts that the2016 Democratic Party platform was similar to the platform of theThird Reich. The statement received media attention in 2018 when repeated by Donald Trump Jr.. PolitiFact gave the claim its "Pants-on-Fire" rating, noting that "only a small number of elements of the two platforms are clearly similar, and those are so uncontroversial that they appear in the Republican platform as well."[74] Historians refuted the assertion, with University of Maryland historian and Barack Obama critic Jeffrey Herf saying, "There is not the slightest, tiny sliver in which this could be even somewhat accurate."[74] In another review of the book, historian Nicole Hemmer, then of the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, wrote: "For a book about secret Nazis, The Big Lie is surprisingly dull ... The Big Lie thus adds little to the no-you're-the-fascist genre on the right".[75] New York Times columnist Ross Douthat criticized the book, saying it was a "plea-for-attention" by D'Souza, and that the author had "become a hack". Douthat further stated, "Because D'Souza has become a professional deceiver, what he adds are extraordinary elisions, sweeping calumnies and laughable leaps."[76]

In an article for The American Conservative, historian and philosopher Paul Gottfried, who has written extensively on the subject of fascism, harshly criticized a PragerU video hosted by D'Souza which maintained that fascism was a leftist ideology. D'Souza also maintained that Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile, who influenced Italian fascism, was a leftist, to which Gottfried noted that this contradicted the research by "almost all scholars of Gentile’s work, from across the political spectrum, who view him, as I do in my study of fascism, as the most distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right."[77]

Christian apologetics series

Filmmaking

D'Souza's Christian apologetics books, What's So Great About Christianity and Life After Death: The Evidence, were both on *The New York Times* Best Seller list.[78]

2016: Obama's America film (2012)

Main article: 2016: Obama's America

D'Souza wrote and co-directed the documentary-style polemical film 2016: Obama's America.[79] Through interviews and reenactments, the film compares the similarities in the lives of D'Souza and President Barack Obama. D'Souza suggested that early influences on Obama affected the decisions he made as president. The film's tagline is "Love him or hate him, you don't know him." The film has been criticized on the grounds that what D'Souza claims to be an investigation of Obama includes considerable projection, speculation, and selective borrowing from Obama's autobiography, to prove D'Souza's own narrative.[80][81]In a "Fact Check" of the film, the Associated Press found that D'Souza provided little or no evidence for most of his claims, noted that several allegations were factually false, and described the film's central thesis as "almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best."[82]

After a limited release beginning July 13, 2012, the film expanded to over 1,000 theaters in late August 2012, and reached more than 2,000 theaters before the end of September 2012, eventually grossing more than $33.4 million.[19] It is the fifth highest-grossing documentary-style in the United States during the last four decades,[19] and the second highest-grossing political documentary.[83]

The Obama administration described the film as "an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the president".[84][85] Later, when D'Souza was indicted for violating election law, D'Souza and his co-producers alleged that he was selectively prosecuted, and that the indictment was politically motivated retribution for the success of the film.[86]

America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014)

Main article: America: Imagine the World Without Her

In March 2013, D'Souza announced work on a documentary-style film titled America: Imagine the World Without Her for release in 2014.[87] America was marketed to political conservatives and through Christian marketing firms.[88] The Washington Times states that D'Souza is saying that Americans no longer have past heroes like Washington, Lincoln, and Reagan, but "we do have us" in "our struggle for the restoration of America."[89]

Lions Gate Entertainment released America in three theaters on June 27, 2014 and expanded its distribution on the weekend of the U.S. holiday Independence Day on July 4, 2014. CinemaScore reported that the opening-weekend audiences gave the film an "A+" grade.[90][91] The film grossed $14.4 million, which made it the highest-grossing documentary in the United States in 2014.[92]

The film review website Metacritic surveyed 11 movie critics and assessed 10 reviews as negative and 1 as mixed, with none being positive. It gave an aggregate score of 15 out of 100, which indicates "overwhelming dislike".[93] The similar website Rotten Tomatoessurveyed 24 critics and, categorizing the reviews as positive or negative, assessed 22 as negative and 2 as positive. Of the 24 reviews, it determined an average rating of 2.9 out of 10. The website gave the film an overall score of 8% and said of the consensus, "Passionate but poorly constructed, America preaches to the choir."[94] The Hollywood Reporter's Paul Bond said the film performed well in its limited theatrical release, "overcoming several negative reviews in the mainstream media".[95] Bond reported, "Conservatives ... seem thrilled with the movie."[95]

Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)

Main article: Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

:{

}:

D'Souza at CPAC 2016 in Washington, D.C.

:{On July 25, 2016, D'Souza released the documentary film Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party:(style="background-color:#ff9900;"):}::{.:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}:[96] The film criticizes the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, the presumptive (and ultimate) Democratic nominee for President of the United States in 2016.[96][97]

The film was universally panned by professional film critics. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 4%, based on 27 professional reviews, with an average rating of 1.7/10. The critics consensus on the site reads, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party finds Dinesh D'Souza once again preaching to the right-wing choir—albeit less effectively than ever."[98] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating, the film has a score of 2 out of 100, based on 17 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".[99] The film has the seventh lowest score of all films on the site.[100]

Peter Sobczynski wrote, "Hillary's America may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life."[101] A July 2016 review in Variety characterized D'Souza as "a right-wing conspiracy wingnut, the kind of "thinker" who takes off from Barack Obama birther theories and just keeps going, spinning out a web of comic-book liberal evil."[102] Alex Shephard of The New Republic said:

Because he is a very dumb man, D’Souza doesn’t even make a credible argument that Bill and Hillary are corrupt, even though in many ways it’s low-hanging fruit. Instead, like every fringe weirdo who comes after the Clintons does, he overreaches and invents an absurd conspiracy ... It’s not enough for, say, the Clinton Foundation to have taken money from, say, Saudi Arabia—instead, Clinton is literally presented as selling America to foreign countries. Why? D’Souza never explains.[103]

Some conservatives viewed the film more positively. John Fund of the National Review stated that "[the film] is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D'Souza book that accompanies the movie." He also called the film "intensely patriotic".[104] On July 23, 2016, Donald Trump, who was then running as the Republican presidential nominee against Clinton, called on supporters to see the film.[105]

On January 23, 2017 the film was nominated for five Razzies including: Worst Picture, Worst Actor (Dinesh D'Souza), Worst Actress (Becky Turner), Worst Director (Dinesh D'Souza and Bruce Schooley), and Worst Screenplay.[106] In response to the Razzie nominations, D'Souza stated that he was "actually quite honored" and called the nominations "petty revenge" in response to Trump's election victory, also stating that "the film might have played an important role in the election."[107] After "winning" four of the five possible Razzies, D'Souza repeated his view that the nominations were awarded in response to Trump's election victory.[108]

Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? (2018)

Main article: Death of a Nation (2018 film)

Death of a Nation had its world premiere in Los Angeles, California on July 30, 2018.[109][110] A showing in Washington, D.C. on August 1, 2018 was co-hosted by D'Souza and President Donald Trump's son **Donald Trump Jr.**[111][112]

The film Death of a Nation centers around drawing parallels between the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, and the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Death of a Nation explores the role of the Democratic Party in opposing both presidents. In the film, D'Souza accuses the Democratic Party—both historically and presently—of racism, white supremacy, and fascism. D'Souza further argues that the political left attempt to falsely push claims of racism, white supremacy, and fascism onto the political right for political gain. He claims that the modern political left is currently using these types of accusations in attempts to remove Trump from office "by any means necessary."

The film includes numerous falsehoods and has received criticism from historians regarding aspects of historical accuracy.[113][114] The film characterizes Adolf Hitler as a liberal; historians characterize Hitler and the Nazis as being far-right.[111][115] It also claims that Hitler was a LGBTQ sympathizer, whereas the Nazis murdered thousands of gay men and imprisoned homosexuals in concentration camps.[116]

On the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 0% based on 11 reviews, with an average rating of 1.9/10.[117] On Metacritic the film has a weighted average score of 1 out of 100, based on 8 critics, indicating "overwhelming dislike".[118] PostTrak reported that filmgoers gave the film a score of 4 out of 5 stars,[119] while The Hollywood Reporter wrote that those polled by CinemaScore (which was paid by Death of a Nation's filmmakers to conduct polls of audiences) gave it a grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.[120]

On its opening weekend, the film grossed $2.3 million on 1,032 screens, the lowest wide release for a D'Souza film.[119] As of August 19, 2018, the film has grossed $5.3 million.[121]

Media appearances and speaking engagements

D'Souza has appeared on numerous national television networks and programs.[122] Six days after the September 11, 2001, attacks, D'Souza appeared on Politically Incorrect hosted by Bill Maher. He disputed the assertion that terrorists were cowards by saying, "Look at what they did. You have a whole bunch of guys who were willing to give their life; none of them backed out. All of them slammed themselves into pieces of concrete. These are warriors." Maher agreed with D'Souza's comments and said, "We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away."[123]

During an interview on The Colbert Report on January 16, 2007, while promoting his book The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, D'Souza maintained that liberals had some responsibility for the September 11 attacks. He said liberals' "penchant for interference" had a decided effect in convincing the Carter administration to withdraw support from the Shah, which brought on Muslim fundamentalists' control of the Iranian government. He also said that the distorted representation of American culture on television is one source of resentment of the United States by Muslims worldwide. D'Souza believes that traditional Muslims are not too different from traditional Jews and Christians in America. Towards the end of the interview, he admitted that he and Islamic militants share some of the same negative beliefs about liberal Americans.[124]

In late February 2017, students at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas, stole more than 200 flyers advertising D'Souza's planned appearance at the university the first week of March. D'Souza called the protest "pathetic", and suggested the demonstrators "Come out and debate me. In the best case you may win; in the worst, you'll learn something". Twin brothers Manfred and Jonah Wendt, co-founders of the student conservative group Tigers for Liberty, had passed around 600 notices of D'Souza's visit to campus. Those returned by the protesters contained negative comments about D'Souza.[125]

Views

D'Souza is generally identified as a neoconservative.[126][127] He defines conservatism in the American sense as "conserving the principles of the American Revolution."[128] In Letters to a Young Conservative, written as an introduction to conservative ideas for youth, D'Souza argues that it is a blend of classical liberalism and ancient virtue, in particular, "the belief that there are moral standards in the universe and that living up to them is the best way to have a full and happy life." He also argues against what he calls the modern liberal belief that "human nature is intrinsically good," and thus that "the great conflicts in the world ... arise out of terrible misunderstandings that can be corrected through ongoing conversation and through the mediation of the United Nations."[129]

In the book Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991), D'Souza argued that intolerance of conservative views is common at many universities. He has attributed many modern social problems to what he calls the "cultural left."

D'Souza has also been critical of feminism,and Bruce Goldner, in a review of D'Souza's Illiberal Education, noted that he "has a tendency to characterize feminists as castrating misanthropes".[130]

Religion

D'Souza attended the evangelical church Calvary Chapel from 2000 to about 2010.[131] While stating his Catholic background is important to him, D'Souza also says he is comfortable with Protestant Reformation theology and identifies as a nondenominational Christian.[132] A writer of Christian apologetics, D'Souza has debated against prominent atheists and critics of Christianity on religious and moral issues. His debate opponents have included Dan Barker, Christopher Hitchens,[133] Peter Singer,[134] Daniel Dennett,[135] Michael Shermer, David Silverman,[136] and Bart D. Ehrman.[137][138]

As a guest contributor for Christian Science Monitor, D'Souza wrote, "The moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for—indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to—the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity."[139] He often speaks out against atheism, nonbelief in spirituality, and secularism. D'Souza elaborated on his views in the 2007 book he authored, What's so Great about Christianity. In 2009, he published Life After Death: The Evidence, which argues for an afterlife.

D'Souza has also commented on Islam. He stated in 2007 that "radical Islamic" thinkers have not condemned modernity, science or freedom but only United States' support of "secular dictators in the region" which deny "Muslims freedom and control over their own destiny".[140] He has debated Serge Trifkovic[141] and Robert Spencer, who both deem Islam "inherently aggressive, racist, violent, and intolerant." He has labelled Spencer an "Islamophobe" and "an effective polemicist" in his writings on Islam.[142] D'Souza has also warned against support for "a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center" (i.e., the Park 51 Islamic community center and mosque project),[65] and the Middle East becoming a "United States of Islam"[143] in his attacks against President Barack Obama.

Promotion of conspiracy theories

D'Souza has promoted several conspiracy theories, such as the false claim that Obama was not born in the United States[144][145] and the conspiracy theory that the Clintons had murdered people.[146][147] D'Souza has also promoted conspiracy theories about Hungarian-born Jewish financier George Soros, including the false claim that Soros had collaborated with the Nazis, and that Soros has sponsored Antifa, a left-wing anti-fascist movement.[148] In an August 2016 interview with GQ, D'Souza denied being a conspiracy theorist, stating: "I have never advanced a conspiracy theory in my life."[149]

In August 2017, D'Souza suggested that the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally had been staged.[17] In the same month, D'Souza tweeted that it would be "interesting to see" Soros "extradited to Israel & tried for his complicity in Nazi atrocities against Jews", and referred to Soros as "Hitler’s collection boy".[150]

After mail bombing attempts on prominent Democratic politicians occurred in October 2018, D'Souza tweeted: "Fake sexual assault victims. Fake refugees. Now fake mail bombs." D'Souza spread the conspiracy theory that because there was no cancellation mark on the bomb-containing packages, they were not mailed.[151][152]

In February 2021, after the United States Capitol attack took place, D'Souza suggested that the rioters were little more than "a bunch of rowdy people walking through a hallway".[153] In May, D'Souza tweeted about the attack: "Does this LOOK like an insurrection? A riot? A coup attempt? If it doesn't walk like a duck or talk like a duck then it probably isn't a duck."[154]

Opinions expressed on Twitter

In November 2013, D'Souza received backlash for referring to Obama as "Grown-Up Trayvon" in a tweet. In response to the backlash, D'Souza tweeted: "Feigned outrage on the left over me calling Obama ‘grown up Trayvon’ except that Obama likened himself to Trayvon!".[155] D'Souza later deleted the initial tweet,[145] ostensibly because Obama was referring to his hypothetical son.[citation needed]

In February 2015, D'Souza wrote: "You can take the boy out of the ghetto" in a tweet criticizing Obama for using a selfie stick.[46][145] After the tweet was criticized as racist, D'Souza tweeted: "I know Obama wasn't actually raised in a ghetto--I'm using the term metaphorically, to suggest his unpresidential conduct".[46]

In January 2017, after civil rights leader and Georgia congressman John Lewis stated that the then-newly elected President Donald Trump was not a "legitimate president", D'Souza tweeted: "The left’s false narrative inflates minor figures like John Lewis, Democrat, & downplays major ones like Frederick Douglass, Republican".[156] D'Souza later tweeted that civil rights activist Rosa Parks' contributions to the civil rights movement were "absurdly inflated"[156][157] and described her as an "overrated Democrat".[49][145][157] D'Souza received criticism for the tweets,[156] with Charles C. W. Cooke of National Review stating: "Not only is this is *[sic*] incorrect, it's an attitude that would never be struck about a soldier on, say, Veterans Day … [E]ven if Parks was a minor player (she wasn't), she'd still deserve to be lionized."[157][158][159]

In November 2017, D'Souza mocked Beverly Young Nelson, one of the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual misconduct,[49][157] and tweeted: "I was lukewarm on Roy Moore until the last-minute smear. Now we must elect him to show that the @washingtonpost sleaze attack failed".[160] David French, then-senior writer at National Review, tweeted "What has happened to you?" in response to D'Souza's tweet about Nelson.[49][157]

In February 2018, D'Souza was criticized for a series of tweets which mocked the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. In response to a photo of survivors reacting to Florida lawmakers voting down a proposed ban on assault weapons in the aftermath of the shooting, D'Souza tweeted "worst news since their parents told them to get summer jobs".[45][157] D'Souza also accused the survivors of "politically-orchestrated grief" and said that their grief "[struck him] as phony and inauthentic".[45] D'Souza's comments were condemned by both liberal and conservative commentators. Journalist Jonathan M. Katz wrote: "Let it never be said that Dinesh does not actively root for the death of children."[161] Others accused D'Souza of "trolling kids".[161][162][163] D'Souza was also denounced by the Conservative Political Action Conference, which removed him from its roster of speakers and stated: "his comments are indefensible".[45][162] D'Souza subsequently apologized for the initial tweet, saying that it was "aimed at media manipulation" and that he was being "insensitive to students who lost friends in a terrible tragedy."[45][157][164]

Presidency of The King's College

In August 2010, D'Souza was named president of The King's College, a Christian liberal arts college then housed in the Empire State Building in Manhattan.[165] In 2012, the college relocated to a larger space next door to the New York Stock Exchange in Lower Manhattan's financial district.[166] On October 18, 2012, D'Souza resigned his post at The King's College following a press report that he—despite being married—had shared a hotel room at a Christian conference with another woman and introduced her to others as his fiancée. D'Souza acknowledged being separated from his wife and having introduced Denise Odie Joseph II as his fiancée at a Christian conference; however, he denied that the two were engaged in an adulterous affair and that he had shared a room with Joseph at the conference, and described the report as "pure libel" that is "worthy of Christian condemnation."[167][168][169] After an investigation by officials at The King's College, D'Souza stated that he had suspended his engagement to Joseph.[26][167]

After D'Souza's indiscretion became public, the trustees of The King's College announced on October 17, 2012 that D'Souza had resigned his position as president of the university "to attend to his personal and family needs".[170]

Campaign finance violation, felony guilty plea, conviction, and pardon

On January 23, 2014, D'Souza was charged with making $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the New York Senate campaign of Wendy Long and causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission.[171][172][173] His attorney responded to the charges by saying his client "did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever" and described the incident as "at most ... an act of misguided friendship".[174][175]

On May 15, 2014, United States district judge Richard M. Berman rejected the contention that D'Souza was singled out for prosecution, stating, "The court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted."[176]

On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.[177] On September 23, 2014, the court sentenced D'Souza to five years' probation, eight months in a halfway house (referred to as a "community confinement center") and a $30,000 fine.[29][30] After D'Souza's conviction, his claim of selective prosecution continued to receive support from some conservative media and commentators.[178]

On May 31, 2018, President Donald Trump pardoned D'Souza.[31] D'Souza thanked Trump for the pardon, tweeting: "Obama and his stooges tried to extinguish my American dream& destroy my faith in America. Thank you @realDonaldTrump for fully restoring both".[179] After fellow Indian-American Preet Bharara criticized Trump's pardon of D'Souza, D'Souza accused Bharara of trying to destroy his career, tweeting:"Bharara & his goons bludgeoned me into the plea by threatening to add a second redundant charge carrying a prison term of FIVE YEARS".[179]

Personal life

D'Souza dated fellow conservatives Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter prior to meeting Dixie Brubaker while working at the White House. D'Souza and Brubaker married in 1992.[22] They have one daughter, Danielle D’Souza Gill, who is a writer and a member of the Women for Trump Coalition.[180][181] The couple lived together in California until D'Souza moved to New York as president of The King's College in 2010.[182] He maintained a residence near San Diego, California, where his wife and daughter remained. D'Souza and Brubaker divorced in 2012.[22]

While D'Souza was being sentenced for campaign finance fraud in 2014, Brubaker wrote a letter to the judge alleging that D'Souza had physically abused her; she claimed that "in April 2012 … he, using his purple belt karate skills, kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day."[183][184] Benjamin Brafman, D'Souza's attorney for his campaign finance case, dismissed Brubaker's allegation as completely false.[184]

On March 19, 2016, D'Souza married Deborah Fancher, a conservative political activist and mother of two.[185] Fancher emigrated from Venezuela at age 10. The wedding was held near San Diego withRafael Cruz, father of U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), officiating.[186]

Works

Books

Books authored by D'Souza include:

YearTitleNotes
1984Falwell, Before the Millennium: A Critical BiographyRegnery Publishing (ISBN 0895266075)
1986The Catholic Classics(ISBN 0879735457)
1987My Dear Alex: Letters From The KGB (with Gregory Fossedal)Regnery Publishing (ISBN 0895265761)
1991Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus(ISBN 0684863847)
1995The End of Racism(ISBN 0684825244)
1997Ronald Reagan: How An Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader(ISBN 0684848236)
2000The Virtue of Prosperity(ISBN 0684868156)
2002What's So Great About AmericaRegnery Publishing (ISBN 0895261537)
2002Letters to a Young Conservative(ISBN 0465017347)
2007The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11(ISBN 0385510128)
2007What's So Great About ChristianityRegnery Publishing (ISBN 1596985178)
2008Foreword to Conspiracies and the Cross by Timothy Paul JonesFrontline Books (ISBN 1599792052)
2009Life After Death: The Evidence(ISBN 978-1596980990)
2010The Roots of Obama's RageRegnery Publishing (ISBN 978-1596986251)
2012Godforsaken: Bad things happen. Is there a God who cares? YES. Here's proofTyndale House (ISBN 978-1414324852)
2012Obama's America: Unmaking the American DreamRegnery Publishing (ISBN 1596987782)
2014America: Imagine a World without HerRegnery Publishing (ISBN 978-1621572039)
2015What's So Great About AmericaRegnery Publishing (ISBN 1621574024)
2015

Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me

about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party

Broadside Books (ISBN 978-0062366719)
2017The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American LeftRegnery Publishing (ISBN 978-1621573487)
2018Death of a Nation: Plantation Politics and the Making of the Democratic PartyAll Points Books (ISBN 978-1250163776)
2020United States of Socialism: Who's Behind It. Why It's Evil. How to Stop It.All Points Books (ISBN 978-1250163783)

Films

YearTitleNotes
2004Michael Moore Hates AmericaCo-star[187]
20122016: Obama's AmericaExecutive producer, co-director, co-writer, and star
2014America: Imagine the World Without HerExecutive producer, director, co-writer, and star[188]
2016Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic PartyExecutive producer, director, co-writer, and star[189]
2018Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time?Executive producer, director, co-writer, and star[190]
2020Trump CardCo-director, co-writer, producer[191]
2020InfidelExecutive produced through his production company D'Souza Media[192]
20222000 Mules2000 Mules

Awards and nominations

...

==

duck 3 22 Obama regnery

Roots of Obama's Rage - - Regnery Publishing

Search domain regnery.comhttps://www.regnery.com › 9781596986251 › the-roots-of-obamas-rage

Controversial and compelling, The Roots of Obama's Rage is poised to be the one book that truly defines Obama and his presidency. ISBN-13: 9781596986251. Published: September, 2010. 152.00 x 228.00 x 27.90 mm.

The Great Destroyer - Barack Obama's ... - Regnery Publishing

Search domain regnery.comhttps://www.regnery.com › 9781596987777 › the-great-destroyer

as new york times bestselling author david limbaugh documents in chilling detail in his new book, the great destroyer, the obama administration has waged a relentless, nearly four-year-long war to transform our nation into a country where federal bureaucrats have more power over our lives than we do; where leftist crony capitalism dependent on …

Amazon.com: The Roots of Obama's Rage: 9781596986251: D ...

Search domain amazon.comhttps://www.amazon.com › Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza › dp › 1596986255

In2010, D'Souza wrote The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery), which was described as the most influential political book of the year and proved to be yet another best seller. In 2012, D'Souza published two books, Godforsaken and Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream, the latter climbing to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list ...

The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide - How to ... - regnery.com

Search domain regnery.comhttps://www.regnery.com › 9781621570912 › the-ultimate-obama-survival-guide

In The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide,Wayne Allyn Root provides the answer. First, he explains step by step what Obama has planned. Then, Root presents Y-PODS: Your Personal Obama Defense Shields - a detailed 18 point plan to protect your assets, capitalize, and PROSPER as the rest of the country treads water or drowns! And that's just the ...

The Roots of Obama's Rage - Kindle edition by D'Souza ...

Search domain amazon.comhttps://www.amazon.com › Roots-Obamas-Rage-Dinesh-DSouza-ebook › dp › B005OCJCYO

In 2010, D'Souza wrote The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery), which was described as the most influential political book of the year and proved to be yet another best seller.

Regnery To Publish Wayne Allyn Root's Ultimate Obama ...

Search domain rootforamerica.comhttps://rootforamerica.com › regnery-to-publish-wayne-allyn-roots-ultimate-obama-survival-guide

washington, dc (january 7, 2013)—regnery publishing, the nation's leading publisher of conservative books, announced today plans to publish the ultimate obama survival guide: secrets to protecting your family, your finances, and your freedom by author wayne allyn root, a nationally recognized ceo, entrepreneur, conservative media personality, …

Conservative Books for Independent Thinkers - Regnery ...

Search domain regnery.comhttps://www.regnery.com

Regnery Publishing is America's leading publisher of conservative books for over 70 years. Our authors change lives and our readers change history.

Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream: D'Souza ...

Search domain amazon.comhttps://www.amazon.com › Obamas-America-Unmaking-American-Dream › dp › 1476773351

In this #1 New York Times bestselling book, Dinesh D'Souza, the creator of the second highest-grossing political documentary ever, 2016: Obama's America, lays out Obama's plans through the end of his second administration and warns us how he will harm the country. America as we know it—wealthy, powerful, assertive—is not what Obama wants.

David Limbaugh Books - Nine Bestselling Books From Regnery ...

Search domain regnery.comhttps://www.regnery.com › david-limbaugh-books

Great book!" — David and Jason Benham . The Great Destroyer "My friend David Limbaugh has written the best book about the worst president in American history. If anyone reads this book and still votes for Barack Obama, he should have his head examined." —Mark Levin

[[]

bout David Limbaugh

All nine of David Limbaugh’s books are national bestsellers, including Guilty by Reason of Insanity, The Great Destroyer, Jesus on Trial, and Jesus is Risen. He is a lawyer, and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate, Townhall.com, WorldNetDaily, Jewish World Review, and Newsmax.

David Limbaugh was chosen by Christian authors Norman Geisler and Frank Turek to write the foreword to their book in 2004. In the book, Limbaugh states that he became a Christian after years of being a skeptic and that he now has a strong interest in Christian apologetics. Limbaugh describes himself as “an evangelical Christian”.

David Limbaugh is the brother of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, and lives in Cape Giradeau, Missouri with his wife Lisa. They have five children.

Reviews of David Limbaugh Books

Guilty by Reason of Insanity

“Today’s Democrats are pushing policies that are simply insane, and David Limbaugh proves it in his terrific, and tremendously important, new book, Guilty by Reason of Insanity.”

— Mark Levin, nationally syndicated radio talk show host

“Few pundits can match David Limbaugh for research, depth of knowledge, and political insight, and in this book, perhaps his best political book, he shows how the Democrat Party has completely lost its mind.”

— Sean Hannity

Finding Jesus in the Old Testament

“If you’ve ever wondered what ties the Old Testament and the New Testament together, then this is the book for you. It’s the best Christian layman’s guide to the Old Testament I’ve ever read. Fascinating-and highly recommended!”

— Sean Hannity

The True Jesus

“In The True Jesus, the Son of God of the Gospels truly comes alive for readers. This is the Case for Christ from the life of Jesus Himself–and Limbaugh tells it in a way that will inspire you to read and study the Gospels like never before.”

— Lee Strobel, author

Jesus on Trial

“Many people know my friend David Limbaugh as a bestselling author and political commentator. But he is also a lawyer trained to analyze evidence—and in Jesus on Trial he provides his personal journey to the truth of the Bible. A fantastic book!”

— Sean Hannity

Jesus is Risen

“My brother has done it again! He has taught me more about Christianity than I thought I could learn, and this book will do the same for you. You will find no better, more convincing interpretation of these books of the Bible than right here in Jesus Is Risen. This is an exciting and understandable analysis you will savor and appreciate. Don’t doubt me.”

— Rush Limbaugh

“Freedom isn’t possible without freedom in Christ, and to understand this, you need to understand the Bible. David Limbaugh has done readers a wonderful service in this Bible-baed history of the early Christian Church. It is a must-read book for anyone who wants to understand the roots of Christianity and the importance of grace.”

— Dana Loesch

“One of the greatest defenses of faith is history, and in Jesus Is Risen, David Limbaugh reveals the true history of the early church in a way that everyone can understand and be inspired by. Great book!”

— David and Jason Benham

The Great Destroyer

“My friend David Limbaugh has written the best book about the worst president in American history. If anyone reads this book and still votes for Barack Obama, he should have his head examined.”

—Mark Levin

“The Great Destroyer reads like a terrific political thriller about an administration hell-bent on bankrupting its own nation and undermining its national security. The fact that it’s a true story about our own country should disturb and alarm every reader.”

—Vince Flynn, author

Crimes Against Liberty

“Reading David Limbaugh books on the Obama administration is imperative right now. Week in and week out, his devastating columns provide cathartic relief during these dark days for the republic. In his terrific new book Crimes Against Liberty, he has given us a powerful indictment of this administration–its hypocrisy, dishonesty, radicalism, and corruption. Arm yourself with knowledge for the coming showdown: Read this book.”

— Ann Coulter]]

Gangster Government launches TODAY! | Regnery Books Blog

Search domain regnerybooks.wordpress.comhttps://regnerybooks.wordpress.com › 2011 › 04 › 04 › gangster-government-launches-today

Today is the release of NYT bestseller David Freddoso's new book, Gangster Goverment: Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy. Freddoso will be starting off the launch in NYC today, appearing on Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto at around 4 and Hannity around 9. Tune in to see what all the buzz is about!…

===)

new

Writer Ken Klippenstein, over Memorial Day weekend, managed to reel in Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), American Conservative Union Chairman chair Matt Schlapp, and conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza into a ruse honoring Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who assassinated former President John F. Kennedy.

On Monday, May 31, Klippenstein asked Gaetz, "Congressman, my grandpa's a big fan of yours and is a veteran, he would be thrilled if you could RT this photo of him for Memorial Day. Here he is as a young Private First Class."

He added, "Happy Memorial Day."

Without researching the image, Gaetz retweeted Klippenstei's words along with the photo and a caption that read, "Wow [Ken Klippenstein] it's my honor to retweet the photo of a veteran on a day we remember his fallen friends. God bless your grandfather."...

new

hang him, early rept he had spoken to some cab member about 25th, but then silent/absent, nancy 24 hr deadline

https://www.alternet.org/2021/01/trump-enablers-2649875205/

no lnx twt

With the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden less than two weeks away, some of President Donald Trump's most aggressive loyalists and defenders now find themselves being attacked by extremists for their supposed lack of purity — including Vice President Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Lindsey Graham and former Attorney General William Barr. And the fanatics that they enabled and encouraged are now accusing them of not doing enough in support of Dear Leader.

The most disturbing example is Pence. When a joint session of Congress met on January 6 to certify Biden's Electoral College victory, Trump demanded that Pence prevent that certification— which he didn't have the power to do. Regardless, some of the far-right extremists and White nationalists who showed up in Washington, D.C. that day believed that Pence was letting Trump down. Groups of them began chanting, "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence" — and a hangman's noose hung from a tree near the U.S. Capitol Building, which was stormed by a violent mob of Trump supporters. The same extremists who were hoping to harm Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that day advocated murdering Pence as well.

Graham has repeatedly jumped through hoops in support of Trump, from the Russia investigation to the Ukraine scandal and the president's impeachment to Trump's Supreme Court nominees. But after the storming of the Capitol Building, a frustrated Graham finally distanced himself from Trump — saying, "Trump and I, we've had a hell of a journey…. All I can say is: count me out, enough is enough. I've tried to be helpful."

Later, when Graham was walking through Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport last week, he was heckled by angry Trump supporters who believed he hadn't done enough to help Trump overturn the election results. Video posted by CNN shows a Trump supporter shouting, "Lindsey Graham, you are a traitor to the country…. You garbage human being."

Barr's critics often accused him of debasing himself by becoming "Trump's Roy Cohn" — an insulting reference to the unscrupulous attorney who supported Sen. Joseph McCarthy during the 1950s and represented a young Trump in the private sector during the 1970s. But after the 2020 presidential election, Barr was branded a traitor by MAGA diehards for acknowledging Biden as president-elect and telling the Associated Press, "To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."

Following the events of January 6, Barr described Trump's conduct as a "betrayal of his office and supporters" and told AP, that "orchestrating a mob to pressure Congress is inexcusable."

MAGA diehards are also furious with McConnell, who was a staunch Trump ally throughout his impeachment and aggressively supported all three of Trump's Supreme Court nominees: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and most recently, Justice Amy Coney Barrett. On December 15, however, McConnell acknowledged Biden as president-elect and congratulated him on the Senate floor — inspiring wingnut radio host Mark Levin to post, on Parler, "Thanks for nothing, Mitch. Trump helped you secure your seat, as he did so many Senate and House seats, and you couldn't even wait until January 6th. You've been the GOP 'leader' in the Senate for far too long. It's time for some fresh thinking and new blood."

Mindy Robinson denounced McConnell as a "turncoat," and far-right pundit Dinesh D'Souza lambasted McConnell as well, tweeting:

Why would Mitch McConnell deliver such a body blow to patriots and Trump supporters? What’s he trying to tell us?

History shows that those who support fanaticism can become a victim of it themselves. Communist Leon Trotsky supported totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, and was murdered by Joseph Stalin's henchmen in Mexico because of his supposed lack of purity. And now, in 2021, the MAGA mob is turning against some of the very people who enabled it.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Dan Rather Hammers Trump and His Enablers in Facebook Screed ... ›

Mary Trump unloads on Ivanka as one of the president's biggest ... ›

Holding Trump's enablers accountable - Alternet.org ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Opinion | Trump's enablers can't escape the consequences of their ... ›

Eric Alterman on Holding Trump Enablers Accountable – BillMoyers ... ›

Opinion: Trump enablers Pence and McConnell are far too late in ... ›

Trump Enablers Now Condemning the Violence Want You to Forget ... ›

capt 819

==

Parker Molloy did a deep dive into PragerU, which may be the biggest right-wing media enterprise this side of Fox News. Behind a very thin veil of respectability is some of the wildest propaganda you will ever see.

:{

}:

https://www.mediamatters.org/dennis-prager/prageru-relies-veneer-respectability-obscure-its-propagandist-mission

Despite the name, Prager University is not, to quote from the disclaimer pasted on the bottom of its homepage, “an accredited academic institution” -- nor does it “offer certifications or diplomas.”

Despite its claim that its videos are being “censored” by social media platforms, the site boasts that those samevideos have racked up more than 2.45 billion viewsacross YouTube and Facebook.

Despite -- once again, quoting from its homepage -- being “a place where you are freeto learn,” it’s liable to leave you misinformed.

And despite being built upon this absurd collection of contradictions, PragerU is arguably one of the most influential right-wing propaganda networks put into motion since Fox News.

A 2018 BuzzFeed report told the story of one high school student whose political views did an about-face over the span of just a couple of months of watching PragerU videos. A PragerU brochure makes bold-yet-believable claims about its viewing demographics and its ability to sway their political leanings, noting that more than 60% of its YouTube viewers are under the age of 35 and 70% of surveyed viewers said a video had changed their minds. A March 2018 Mother Jones article called PragerU a “Right-Wing YouTube Empire That’s Quietly Turning Millennials Into Conservatives,” and the Los Angeles Times recently said PragerU was “having more success rallying young people to Trump’s side than many campaign committees aligned with the president.”

One could also argue that unlike websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, or The Daily Wire, which have well-earned reputations as hyperpartisan cesspools of misinformation, PragerU has been able to mostly avoid such stigma -- even though it shares a number of key associations with those sites.

PragerU cloaks its extremism in a veneer of respectability, and that’s crucial to its success.

The site, founded in 2011, is known for its polished and persuasive five-minute videos. Some videos focus on history, like the legacy of Christopher Columbus (apparently he’s gotten a bad rap) or the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt (the “New Deal” actually made things worse). Others tackle ongoing issues dividing the world such as religion (the West can thank “Judeo-Christian values” for its success) or the push for a $15 minimum wage (a bad idea!).

If you didn’t know much about the specific presenters, their bios give the impression that many of them are relatively mainstream right-leaning media figures. For instance, PragerU has videos hosted by multiple Pulitzer Prize winners, popular TV hosts, sports journalists, current and former Washington Post columnists, a Canadian former prime minister, a five-time Emmy Award winner, a nominee tohead the Labor Department, atwo-time presidential candidate, a former White House press secretary, as well as current and former faculty at respected institutions such as West Point, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and Princeton, among others.

Some of the site’s videos are … well, they’re fine. Comedian Yakov Smirnoff hosts a clip about the importance of laughter in healthy relationships. Col. Ty Seidule delivers a straightforward answer to the question of whether or not the Civil War was really about slavery (he says it was). Other clips, such as Adam Carolla’s ode to personal change, J:{ordan Peterson:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:’s call to “fix yourself,” or Michele Tafoya’s “secret to success,” are just boilerplate self-help speeches we’ve all probably heard dozens of variations on in our lives. It’s the combination of respectable-sounding presenters with a handful of harmless clips that cover for the site’s hard-right ideology.

[pix From PragerU's February 2014 video, "Feminism 2.0."

Peterson’s “Fix Yourself” video is a perfect example of PragerU’s ability to use gateway videos to pivot to something much darker.

Peterson posted “Fix Yourself” -- a standard clip about self-reflection and improvement -- in January 2018. But a few months later, he came up with a video titled “Dangerous People Are Teaching Your Kids,” in which he rails against professors who are “indoctrinating young minds throughout the West with their resentment-ridden ideology.”

These people “have made it their life's mission to undermine Western civilization itself, which they regard as corrupt, oppressive, and patriarchal.” This “gang of nihilists,” as Peterson puts it, is made up of “post-modern neo-Marxists” whose ideas “should be consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Peterson’s views make him an extremist, and he’s far from the only one with a PragerU platform. YouTuber Steven Crowder’s video about Columbus Day engages in wild historical revisionism and claims that criticizing Columbus is “an exercise in hating Western civilization, which is really just an exercise in hating yourself.” The site posted (and later deleted) a video by slur-slinging right-wing conspiracy theorist Owen Benjamin demonizing leftists. Author Douglas Murray appeared in a video claiming that the decision of European countries to take in refugees from the Middle East and North Africa was a form of “suicide, the self-annihilation of a culture.” Ben Shapiro’s treatise on Western superiority was built upon bad facts and bad arguments. Shapiro’s Daily Wire colleagues Andrew Klavan, Michael Knowles, and Matt Walsh railed against feminism, political correctness, and the very concept of self-esteem, respectively. 

It’s no huge surprise that PragerU’s content often mirrors the views long championed by its namesake, Dennis Prager, a radio-host-turned-digital media mogul.

No one article can truly encapsulate Prager’s decades of political commentary, but he did a pretty decent job summarizing his own worldview in a March column in the National Review. In the piece, he explained why he didn’t believe the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to disrupt the 2016 election:

But the biggest reason I never believed the Russian collusion charge was that the charge emanated from the left. And the Left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it.

…

If you always doubt a leftist claim, you will almost always be closer to the truth. I employed that rule in concluding the collusion story was a fraud, and it served me well.

There’s a big difference between critical thinking and reflexive contrarianism. A 2011 blog post shines further light on how Prager sees the world:

Ever since I attended college, I have been convinced that either “studies” confirm what common sense suggests or that they are mistaken. I realized this when I was presented with study after study showing that boys and girls were not inherently different from one another, and they acted differently only because of sexist upbringings.

To Prager, if evidence doesn’t support his existing beliefs, the evidence must be wrong. This is instructive when it comes to understanding what kind of education one might get from a diet of PragerU videos.

Like many of his PragerU presenters, Prager himself is a far-right extremist on a number of issues. He’s claimed that theGreen New Deal “will lead to bloodshed, loss of liberty, loss of human rights.” He has a long history of making false claims about HIV and AIDS -- specifically that it’s not something straight people need to concern themselves with. He’s compared a wife’s “obligation” to have sex with her husband whether she wants to or not to a man’s obligation to go to work even if he’s not in the mood. He’s argued that legalizing same-sex marriage would open the door to legalized incest and polygamy, compared the Supreme Court’s Prop 8 ruling to a coup, and said that banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity would lead to “fascism.” He’s also one of several conservative commentators who were adamant that the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard wasn’t motivated by anti-gay hate.

He’s stated a belief that people saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas” is a sign that “Americans today are less free than at any time since the abolition of slavery (with the obvious exception of blacks under Jim Crow).” Prager also argues that discussion of campus rape culture is “a gargantuan lie” pushed by feminists “to get votes.”  In 2012, Prager equated the NCAA’s punishment of Penn State University for its role in covering for assistant coach Jerry Sandusky’s serial sexual abuse of young boys with the act itself, writing, “The lesson the NCAA is teaching young people — that history and truth don’t matter if enough powerful people don’t want them to matter — can be as injurious to society as the cover-up was to the victims of Sandusky.” In 2006, he wrote a column arguing that Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN), a Muslim, should not be allowed to be sworn into Congress unless he did so with his hand on the Bible, not the Quran as he planned on doing. In that column, Prager compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics.

[pix From PragerU's November 2016 video, "Just Say 'Merry Christmas.'"

PragerU's funding largely comes from extremely religious GOP mega-donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Thanks in large part to the backing of fracking billionaires and Daily Wire funders Dan and Farris Wilks, Prager was able to fund PragerU, creating an outsized platform for his extremist views.

An April 2015 report in Rewire put a spotlight on the organization and its plan to get its videos incorporated into public school lessons. At that time, according to Rewire, the Wilks family had given more than $6.5 million to PragerU. A brief look at some of their beliefs shows why they made for such a perfect fit for Prager:

In 2013, at a Pastors and Pews event sponsored by the American Family Association, Dan Wilks had this to say about education: “I just think we have to make people aware, you know, and bring the Bible back into the school, and start teaching our kids at a younger age, and, uh, you know, and focus on the younger generation.”

His brother Farris went on to add: “They’re being taught the other ideas, the gay agenda,every day out in the world so we have to stand up and explain to them that that’s not real, that’s not proper, it’s not right.”

A Reuters report about the brothers’ support of Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign helped further illustrate their extreme positions on things like LGBTQ rights and climate change:

In sermons, recordings of which were reviewed by Reuters, Farris Wilks has called homosexuality “a perversion tantamount to bestiality, pedophilia and incest.” “It’s a predatorial lifestyle in that they need your children, and straight people having kids, to fulfill their sexual habits,” he said.

Climate change, he says, is God’s will. “If (God) wants the polar caps to remain in place, then he will leave them there,” he told congregants at a service in July 2013.

With large chunks of money coming in from these extremely religious GOP mega-donors with ties to the fossil fuel industry, it’s not exactly shocking that the site would have videos with titles like “Climate Change:What’s So Alarming?” “Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?” “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate,” “Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy,” and “The Truth about CO2.” PragerU also has an entire series about the Ten Commandments, which Dennis Prager describes as “all that is necessary to make a good world.” And George Will, Kimberley Strassel, and David French all have videos explaining why campaign finance reform and/or public disclosure laws are actually tyrannical, anti-democratic, and/or a way for progressives to ruin the lives of people they disagree with.

[pix]From PragerU's January 2017 video, "What’s Holding the Arab World Back?"

PragerU’s extremist, factually inaccurate propaganda has even drawn criticism from some on the right.

Whether it’s gaslighting viewers about President Donald Trump’s “very fine people” comments after the Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally or engaging in some truly bizarre Vietnam War revisionism, PragerU has no apparent problem with blatant misinformation in its videos. Some of these distortions are too much for allies (and occasional allies) to handle.

Writing in The American Conservative, Paul Gottfried slammed a PragerU video by Dinesh D’Souza for labeling fascism a leftist worldview based on a factually bereft understanding of Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile’s belief system:

[Prager and D’Souza] zoom to the heart of Gentile’s neo-Hegelian worldview in thirty seconds and state with absolute certainty that he was a “leftist.” We have to assume that Prager, D’Souza and the rest of their crowd know this intuitively, inasmuch they give no indication of having ever read a word of Gentile’s thought, perhaps outside of a few phrases that they extracted from his Doctrine of Fascism. Their judgment also clashes with that of almost all scholars of Gentile’s work, from across the political spectrum, who view him, as I do in my study of fascism, as the most distinguished intellectual of the revolutionary right.

According to our two stars in what has been laughably named “Prager University,” Gentile proves that “fascism bears a deep kinship to today’s Left.” After all, “Democrat progressives, in full agreement with Gentile, love and push for a centralized state, which manifests itself in stuff like recent state expansion into the private sector.” Among the questions that are left begging are these: “Do the modern Left and Gentile agree on the purpose and functions of the state?” “Would Gentile and Mussolini, who glorified Roman manliness, have rallied to the present Left in its support of feminism and gay marriage?” Did Gentile back in the 1920s favor the kind of “the stuff’ the administrative state is pushing right now?” The answer to all these questions, which of course wouldn’t be acceptable at Prager University, is an emphatic “no.” Control of the national economy by the Italian fascist state, down until its German-puppet version was established as the Italian Social Republic in September 1943, was about the equivalent of that of New Deal America.

In a blog post for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, Alex Nowrasteh picked apart a PragerU video narrated by Michelle Malkin titled “A Nation of Immigration,” saying it is “poorly framed, rife with errors and half-truths, leaves out a lot of relevant information, and comes to an anti-legal immigration conclusion that is unsupported by the evidence presented in the rest of the video.” While it’s unsurprising that the pro-immigration Cato Institute would disagree with Malkin’s conclusions on ideological grounds, Nowrasteh’s dissection of Malkin’s factual errors is illustrative of PragerU’s reliance on omission to advance its narrative.

Reason’s Billy Binion has obliterated PragerU’s claims of censorship on multiple occasions.In one article, he rebutted Prager’s argument that “YouTube's decision to restrict approximately 20 percent of his online 5-minute video shorts on the grounds that they contain mature content -- thus hiding those videos from the approximately 1.5 percent of users who elect for restricted control” was evidence that PragerU was being punished for hosting “a conservative perspective”:

Unfortunately for this argument, Google records show that the Huffington Post, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show all have much larger swaths of content restricted under YouTube's policy. Seventy-one percent of videos from The Young Turks -- a leftist channel -- are blocked, dwarfing PragerU's share.

In a separate piece, Binion debunked Prager’s claims that Google search’s autofill suggestions were evidence of bias against PragerU.

It’s not enough to just say that PragerU isn’t an actual university. It’s outright propaganda, and those appearing on the channel are propagandists.

As an institution, PragerU has proved to be toxic, and it should be best understood as -- as its “About Us” page notes -- a “digital marketing campaign.” If one of Prager University’s goals really is to “[make] the world a better place, five minutes at a time,” it deserves a failing grade for its current output.

==

fair.org 819

Dinesh D’Souza: Editor of Heritage’s Policy Review from 1985 to 1987, D’Souza is still a contributing editor at the magazine. D’Souza first gained notoriety as editor of the collegiate Dartmouth Review, which published under his leadership “Dis She Ain’t No Jive,” a racist parody of black students, and a puff interview of white supremacist David Duke, accompanied by a depiction of a hanging black man (John K. Wilson, The Myth of Political Correctness).

https://www.alternet.org/2019/08/trump-supporter-dinesh-dsouza-gets-slammed-for-tweeting-science-free-claim-about-global-warming-you-fcking-idiot

Trump supporter Dinesh D’Souza gets slammed for tweeting science-free claim about global warming: ‘You f*cking idiot’

Image by Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons .

Written by Walter Einenkel / Daily Kos August 13, 2019

Listen, right-wing intellectuals such as convicted fraudster and felon Dinesh D’Souza have spent so much time looking into a mirror hidden inside of their rectums that it is hard to take anything they say or do seriously. But, depressingly, many people consider expensive glasses to be a sign of intellect. D’Souza has something of a platform again after being pardoned by fellow fraud Donald Trump. Since that time he has produced a garbage propaganda film attacking everyone not named Donald Trump and occasionally embarrassed himself on Twitter.

Today, Dinesh D’Souza jumped the shark of dumb right-wing propaganda when he sent out this tweet.

ADVERTISING

Global warming comes to Australia. Unless you want to believe your lying eyes! https://t.co/uw83nTdIPc

— Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 12, 2019

00:04

00:33

Pretty damning evidence. You see, it is the middle of August, a well-known summertime month in the Northern Hemisphere, and Australia is getting snow! Some MAGA supporters retweeted Dinesh triumphantly, wondering what we liberals would say to explain away this clear indication that global warming is a hoax cooked up by Chinese Muslims in league with the Clintons and Pizzagate and Obama’s deep state. Global warming my foot! Yeehaw! USA U S A U    S    A!

I was at a loss. Part of me remembered something I learned in grade school about Australia’s location in the world and weather—but what could it have been? Using my next-level research skills, I typed “Australia weather” into Google search. Lo and behold, Australia.com and its weather section came up.

Australia’s climate varies greatly throughout the eight states and territories; there are four seasons across most of the country and a wet and dry season in the tropical north.

Report Advertisement

Australia’s seasons are at opposite times to those in the northern hemisphere. December to February is summer; March to May is autumn; June to August is winter; and September to November is spring.

I. Just. Don’t. Understand. I decided to watch D’Souza get ratioed by Twitter, and see if maybe I might learn me something about weather and geography and science. Head on down to enjoy.

Uhh, it is winter in Australia…

— Barry Blough (@BarryBlough) August 12, 2019

Report Advertisement

Wait. But I just went swimming where I live yesterday!

Should we tell your tragically misinformed followers that it’s winter in the southern hemisphere right now?

— Devin Nunes’ Alt-Mom (@NunesAlt) August 12, 2019

Report Advertisement

I just don’t get it!

Nobody knew hemispheres could be so hard, believe me. Nobody!

— Dogald J. Trump (@dogaldtrump) August 12, 2019

Report Advertisement

It’s so true.

Some people are stupid & uninformed. Some people are craven propagandists.

You are the perfect blend of both. pic.twitter.com/Gyyq4zBuFA

— Carl Marx?? (@saddamshaikh1) August 12, 2019

It is sort of remarkable.

This tree is alive and blooms early every spring. Unless you want to believe your lying eyes! pic.twitter.com/LlHWW5wtYg

— A. Marmot ??Underground?? (@_Anunnery) August 12, 2019

Oh. I think I get it.

dude pic.twitter.com/SZ3onIuhph

— ?????????????°??¯?????????¯???????"??"¯????????p?? (@empiricalerror) August 12, 2019

Ohhhh. And finally,

If’s winter there, you fucking idiot.

— Gary Legum (@GaryLegum) August 12, 2019

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/conservative-jonah-goldbergs-fraudulent-claim-that-fascism-is-really-a-left-wing-phenomenon-will-not-die-more-than-a-decade-later/

Jonah Goldberg just keeps inspiring people—whether he intends to or not.

Take Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, for example. Earlier this week, after visiting a Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, Bolsonaro was asked whether he agreed with comments made by his foreign minister claiming that the Nazis of Germany were “leftists.”

He did: “There is no doubt, right?” he said to reporters. He added that the appearance of theword “socialist”in the Nazis’ official party name proved it.

The museum he had just visited, however, isclear about the matter, telling visitors at its website that the German Nazi party arose out of “radical right-wing groups” in Europe.

Where would Bolsonaro get such ideas? He didn’t credit anyone, but the ultimate lineage of this idea really belongs to Goldberg. Perhaps, secondarily and more contemporarily, he’s been absorbing the derivative work of Dinesh d’Souza.

Worst of all, he is far from alone. From Charlottesville to Portland to Christchurch, we’re awash in the effects of a resurgent white-nationalist movement that considers the “liberal smear” that fascism was a right-wing movement further evidence of a “cultural Marxist” campaign against white Western civilization.

D’Souza’s bookThe Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left—which has been a bestseller, despite having been systematically dismantled by everyone from Ross Douthat to Mark Bray to Kevin M. Kruse and exposed as a risible fraud from start to finish—was in fact, as Douthat suggests, essentially a dumbed-down, frat-boy repackaging of Goldberg’s 2008 best-seller, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.D’Souza also made a slickly produced “documentary” pursuing this thesis further, titled Death of a Nation.

Indeed, it seems that even though Goldberg has been previously supportive of d’Souza’s work—including appearing in, as well helping to promote, his previous film, Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,which in fact includes his earliest iteration of the “Nazis were leftists” claim—he’s becoming uncomfortable with where the whole thing has been going.

This all came up, I should mention, in the context of a post Goldberg published at National Review’s blog The Corner last weekend, attacking me for a series of tweets in which I had tweaked him recently. But this is an argument dating back more than a decade.

“I am not a fan of Dinesh D’Souza’s effort to take my argument and twist it into the kind of indictment of liberals Neiwert levels at conservatives or that I was accused of doing,” he wrote.

It was something of a mere side-note to an otherwise long-winded defense of what he has always believed is a deep and subtle argument that partisan simpletons like myself cannot comprehend. But in many ways it encapsulates perfectly the argument we’ve been having for the past decade—the way it caricaturizes my argument en route to building a strawman, the way he shifts the goalposts, and most of all his continued evasion in confronting what his little intellectual exercise has produced in the real world, a la Jair Bolsonaro.

Distancing himself from d’Souza is probably how Goldberg eases some of the resulting cognitive dissonance, but then, unfortunately, there are annoying little ankle-biters like your humble correspondent around to remind him of this evasion. (I also like to remind him that he himself actively helped promote this supposedly bastardized version of his original thesis back when it was Glenn Beck doing it.) Thus the odd way of striking back at a Twitter critic in a forum that lets him not have to deal with the inevitable responses.

The argument dates back to 2008, when I published a harshly negative review of Liberal Fascismat American Prospect,headlined “Jonah Goldberg’s Bizarro History.” As I pointed out at the time, its chief flaw was that it conveniently omitted any consideration of the history and continued presence of actual fascist and neo-Nazi organizations in the American landscape, and their relationship to movement conservatism:

"Beyond the Klan, completely missing from the pages of Goldberg’s book is any mention of the Silver Shirts, the American Nazi Party, the Posse Comitatus, the Aryan Nations, or the National Alliance — all of them openly fascist organizations, many of them involved in some of the nation’s most horrific historical events. (The Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, was the product of a blueprint drawn up by the National Alliance’s William Pierce.) Goldberg sees fit to declare people like Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Hillary Clinton “American fascists,” but he makes no mention of William Dudley Pelley, Gerald L.K. Smith, George Lincoln Rockwell, William Potter Gale, Richard Butler, or David Duke — all of them bona fide fascists: the real thing.

This is a telling omission, because the continuing existence of these groups makes clear what an absurd and nakedly self-serving thing Goldberg’s alternate version of reality is. Why dream up fascists on the left when the reality is that real American fascists have been lurking in the right’s closet for lo these many years? Well, maybe because it’s a handy way of getting everyone to forget that fact.

Goldberg responded, and we had a brief but spirited exchange at our blogs that ended after he decided I was unworthy of his time, which seems to be his most recent conclusion as well. Most of those exchanges can be found at my old blog *Orcinus,*though most of Goldberg’s original retorts seem to have vanished into the ether.

I remained dismayed at seeing how readily Goldberg’s fundamentally fraudulent thesis not only spread into the mainstream but became a kind of received wisdom among movement conservatives, especially because I was fully aware how dimly real historians of fascism viewed this work. So in 2010 I organized a group of them into a forum to air their grievances with Goldberg’s book at History News Network. We invited Goldberg to participate, and he did offer one relatively meek attempt at rebuttal that mostly complained about my participation and how mean everyone was to him.

[Note: Goldberg’s claim in his Corner post that I “tried valiantly to exclude me from it at the time” is just a straight-up lie. I eagerly welcomed his participation. I wrote to Rick Schenkman, the HNN.com editor at the time, to ask if he could recall me doing any such thing, and he replied he couldn’t recollect anything either way.]

Our most recent exchange on Twitter began when Goldberg rebukedRep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her recent remarks about “economic injustice” being closely connected to “environmental justice,” which Goldberg dismissed as “Embarrassing hogwash.”

AOC’s remarks might have the odor of liberal cant, but they also have a factual grounding reflected in serious academic work—unlike certain hoax theses I could name. So I tweeted back the same phrase to him, accompanied by a mock cover of his book and his own core thesis, from those pages: “Fascism, properly understood, is a not a phenomenon of the right at all. It is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left.”

Goldberg winced: “David, I’m sorry I’m your white whale.”

I answered: “As long as your hoax thesis continues to pollute our discourse — thanks, in recent years, no small part to the @DineshDSouza permutation of it — I will remain compelled to call it out for the toxic nonsense that it is, Jonah.”

His reply: “I don’t like what Dinesh did with my book. But I still think you’re essentially a shill talking up your business model rather than dealing with my actual arguments.  You’ve acted in bad faith for over a decade now. It’s kind of sad.”

The next day, obviously still irritated, he subtweeted a response that didn’t actually link to me, but which of course I saw anyway:

Me: Conservatism/classical liberalism in the Anglo-American tradition = limited government, sovereignty of the individual, moral and religious traditionalism, and free market economics. Therefore fascism is not “right wing.”

Left wing obsessive: HOW DARE YOU, YOU IDIOT!?

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) March 31, 2019

This occasioned my response pointing to our long-ago debates that in turn drove him to reply to me at The Corner. It was classic Goldberg, really, as I’ve noted before:

"One of the more striking aspects of Goldberg’s dishonesty is how he manipulates his definitions in self-serving fashion that lets him move the goalposts at will, as though we were playing Calvinball.  John Cole calls this “the Goldberg Principle”: “You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.”  For instance, his operative definition of fascism is actually just the generic definition for totalitarianism, and it omits entirely the special characteristics that distinguish fascism from other forms of totalitarianism.  One of these, for instance, is its overpowering, indeed dominant, antiliberalism – a fact that Goldberg conveniently omitted from throughout his entire 400 or so pages, and later dismissed by claiming that the “liberalism” it opposed was not modern liberalism, but classical liberalism (as though the two have no connection whatever).

All of the classic Jonah tactics—building strawmen, arguing from self-created/self-serving definitions that counter consensual reality, moving the goalposts, gliding over damning counter-evidence and considerations he considers irrelevant—were present in that little aside in which he again tossed d’Souza under the Jonahbus: He characterizes d’Souza’s output as “the kind of indictment of liberals Neiwert levels at conservatives.”

And what kind of indictment was that? According to Goldberg, it was that “his definition of Fascism must indict American conservatives — and only American conservatives.”

This is complete and utter rubbish, of course, because this is never what I’ve argued. I have insisted all along that fascism must be understood as a phenomenon of the right and not the left NOT because I have a project of smearing all conservatives by association, as Goldberg has assumed and insisted for a decade without an iota of evidence, but because it is the very real frame that helps the public understand how fascism can infect our politics.

You know, like most people, I recognize that there’s a spectrum of behavior, and that mainstream conservatives are distinct from right-wing extremists. Or at least were at one time.

Indeed, I’ve argued for many years—as a onetime Republican from Idaho myself—that it’s essential for mainstream conservatives to publicly oppose the radical right because their denunciations carry more weight with the intended audience. Unfortunately, I can’t say I’ve been able to persuade any mainstream conservatives to join that cause, but that may be a product of my pleasing personality.

I do know that when I first began reporting on the Aryan Nations and The Order in the 1980s, followed by Ruby Ridge and the militia movement in the ‘90s, it wasn’t considered a partisan thing at all to do this reportage. It was simple common sense that we needed to shine a spotlight on hate groups and the poisons they bring to communities, not just among people on the left but among communities of faith and chambers of commerce too, all of whom understood that hate is bad for communities.

At one time, Goldberg composed a theory about what kind of person I must be:

Here’s my grand theory about this guy. He’s made his career hyping the terrible threat from the Posse Comitatus, Aryan Nations and American Nazi Party and so like the bureaucrats in Office Space who think TPS reports are the most important thing in the world, he can’t seem to grasp that they’re pretty trivial.

In other words, he came to his understanding of fascism by following bands of racist white losers in the Idaho woods while using some Marxist tract or other as a field guide to identify the various species he encountered. In other words, he’s internalized every cliché and propagandistic talking point I set out to demolish in my book. Moreover, his career depends on maintaining his version of the fascist peril. So, he’s banging his spoon on his highchair a lot because my book undercuts his whole reason for being.

This is what Goldberg means when he dismissively references my “business model”. But as I noted at the time, I wasn’t reading any Marxist tracts to frame my work: I was listening to what these guys were preaching to their crowds and pitching to their recruits. If the neo-Nazis of the Aryan Nations were not definably fascist because of what they preached and not because they were “bad guys,” then the term no longer has any meaning. Which I suspect is Goldberg’s intent all along.

More to the point, they were right-wing—but extremists, as opposed to mainstream. They not only opposed abortion, they believed providers should be executed. They not only resisted civil rights for minorities, they sought to exclude nonwhites from their rights. They not only opposed gay rights, they believed gays should be put to death. Sometimes their views could be indistinguishable from a mainstream conservative, but the body of beliefs put them on the far right. I learned this from talking with and listening to people.

Fascism in reality—as I know it in its on-the-ground American variant, not a theoretical version cooked up as an intellectual exercise—is a kind of right-wing populism turned metastatic, unleashing an authoritarian tide, fueled by a belief in a phoenix-like national rebirth, that uses violence in defense of business interests, established authorities and leaders, and against perceived liberal enemies. I know this from reporting on what they say and do for 30 years, not because I’ve been influenced by some unknown Marxist texts.

But I have researched them deeply over the years in hopes of understanding them. And their orientation has never been in question. Fascism is fundamentally right-wing in large part because it is fundamentally anti-left. As George Orwell wrote, “the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world.”

Of course, Jonah’s assumptions notwithstanding, not only am I utterly unflummoxed by Goldberg’s ready recitation of various facts about how many contemporaneous liberals and progressives flirted with fascist ideas, and how many left-wing ideas were woven into the early fascist appeals (thus the National Socialist Party business), but I’ve always acknowledged their existence, dating back to that first review in the Prospect.

Goldberg, however, accords them more weight than most historians, who have good reason for taking a broader view of these strands as part of the natural complexity of human ideas and their history. As Robert Paxton explained, placing undue weight on fascists’ (frequently misleading) words and propaganda is a categorical mistake, since the reality of their political base and orientation is revealed by their real-world deeds:

"Goldberg simply omits those parts of fascist history that fit badly with his demonstration.  His method is to examine fascist rhetoric, but to ignore how fascist movements functioned in practice.  Since the Nazis recruited their first mass following among the economic and social losers of Weimar Germany, they could sound anti-capitalist at the beginning.  Goldberg makes a big thing of the early programs of the Nazi and Italian Fascist Parties, and publishes the Nazi Twenty-five Points as an appendix.  A closer look would show that the Nazis’ anti-capitalism was a selective affair, opposed to international capital and finance capital, department stores and Jewish businesses, but nowhere opposed to private property per se or favorable to a transfer of all the means of production to public ownership.

A still closer look at how the fascist parties obtained power and then exercised power would show how little these early programs corresponded to fascist practice.  Mussolini acquired powerful backing by hiring his black-shirted squadristi out to property owners for the destruction of socialist and Communist unions and parties.  They destroyed the farm workers’ organizations in the Po Valley in 1921-1922 by violent nightly raids that made them the de facto government of northeastern Italy.  Hitler’s brownshirts fought Communists for control of the streets of Berlin, and claimed to be Germany’s best bulwark against the revolutionary threat that still appeared to be growing in 1932.  Goldberg prefers the abstractions of rhetoric to all this history, noting only that fascism and Communism were “rivals.” So his readers will not learn anything about how the Nazis and Italian Fascists got into power or exercised it.

The bottom line: Does toying with the concept of “liberal fascism” as an intellectual exercise enhance the public’s understanding of fascism—or does it confuse it, in effect destroying it with Newspeak-like negation? After all, given that its antiliberalism is universally understood as an essential component of the complex phenomenon fascism can be, it’s an obvious kind of oxymoron, as useful an idea as “hateful love.”

I’d argue that not only has the latter happened, but the muddied waters have obscured the incoming white nationalist tide—which Goldberg now says he despises, but whose growing presence he really doesn’t really want to acknowledge. So, naturally, he accuses me of being pleased that the alt-right has arisen and spread, when my eternal and ongoing dismay is already well established.

But Goldberg’s idea—that fascism is really a left-wingphenomenon—has been part of that incoming tide. Some of that, of course, is attributable to d’Souza. But the combined effect of Goldberg’s foundation-laying and d’Souza’s sheer demagoguery has meant that the idea of a “fascist left” is everywhere now, particularly among the “Patriot” militias, the Proud Boys, and the alt-lite media mavens who defend them avidly as victims of an insidious antifascist movement.

And now even South American right-wing strongmen are parroting it.

===

==

https://www.alternet.org/conservative-political-ally-donald-trump-chose-pardon-has-wickedly-racist-history-and-we-have

no lnx twt

The Conservative Political Ally Donald Trump Chose to Pardon Has a Wickedly Racist History — And We Have the Receipts

From suggesting Charlottesville was staged to describing Barack Obama's roots as "the ghetto," here are Dinesh D'Souza's greatest hits.

By Jen Hayden / Daily Kos May 31, 2018, 9:17 AM GMT

Dinesh D’Souza is a controversial right-wing figure who is a darling of the darkest parts of conservative circles, beloved for his books and films, which he claims expose the “true history” of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party itself. Outside of conservative bubbles, his books and films are seen for what they are—cheap, dishonest propaganda.

In 2014, Dinesh D’Souza pled guilty to campaign finance fraud. He illegally created straw donors to contribute to Republican Senate candidate Wendy Long. D’Souza admitted in court that he knew it was illegal as he entered his guilty plea and asked the judge for a light sentence. From Politico:

“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, according to Newsday. “I deeply regret my conduct.”

As former U.S. Attorney, Joyce Alene notes this is a blatant signal to Michael Cohen and other Trump allies to “stay strong.”

Joyce Alene

?

@JoyceWhiteVance

Dinesh D’Souza was convicted of one of the crimes Michael Cohen is under investigation for, campaign finance fraud. Impossible to view this as anything other than a “stay strong“ message from Trump to Cohen, especially given the timing. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1002177521599860736 …

6:36 AM - May 31, 2018

34.9K

14.9K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

So, aside from knowingly committing campaign finance fraud and churning out right-wing propaganda, what else is D’Souza known for? For many of the same racist themes and conspiracies that just got Roseanne Barr canceled from television. He has routinely used Twitter to lob racist and homophobic insults at President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, among others. Here is a sampling of some of his lowest moments.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Dinesh D'Souza

?

@DineshDSouza

YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO...Watch this vulgar man show his stuff, while America cowers in embarrassment

8:48 AM - Feb 18, 2015

726

3,319 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

And he spread the racist birther business, while claiming not to be a birther.

?

@DineshDSouza

I was never a birther but what's racist about asking where the son of a Kenyan foreign student visitor to America was actually born?

8:01 AM - Sep 27, 2016

3,910

3,473 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

After Florida teen Trayvon Martin was murdered, Dinesh D’Souza sent this message to the world on Twitter, comparing Trayvon Martin to Obama.

Shannon Watts

?

@shannonrwatts

Never forget that Dinesh D’Souza unapologetically tweeted this right after the murder of Trayvon Martin.

And then there is this despicable tweet targeting Barack and Michelle Obama.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Dinesh D'Souza

?

@DineshDSouza

I deplore this. Who is putting out these vile messages on social media?

12:29 PM - Feb 13, 2018

8,255

5,087 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

D’Souza spread the dumb conspiracy that the Charlottesville white supremacists rally was staged.

Dinesh D'Souza

?

@DineshDSouza

Can a genuine white supremacist be an Obama guy? No. I wonder if whole #Charlottesville rally was a staged event http://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-jason-kessler-reports-say-charlottesville-rally-was-staged-and-its-organizer-was-an-obama-supporter/ …

5:52 AM - Aug 18, 2017

Who is Jason Kessler? Reports say ‘hate rally’ staged and its organizer an Obama supporter

by WorldTribune Staff, August 17, 2017 Supporters of conservative, Indian-American commentator Dinesh D’Souza, believe he went to jail on trumped up charges because he produced the hit film &…

worldtribune.com

5,710

5,190 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

When the teenage survivors of the Stoneman-Douglas High School mass shooting visited the Florida capitol only days after seeing their peers murdered, D’Souza mocked them for crying and expressing disbelief as they watched their state representatives vote down a bill to ban assault weapons.

D’Souza mocked Beverly Johnson, one of the women who accused Alabama’s Roy Moore of sexually assaulting her as a teen.

?

@DineshDSouza

When someone fights back tears over an alleged incident like this 40 years ago you know you are watching a PERFORMANCE #RoyMoore

1:57 PM - Nov 14, 2017

10.3K

9,138 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

He called Rosa Parks “overrated.”

OVERRATED DEMOCRATS DEPT: So Rosa Parks wouldn't sit in the back of the bus--that's all she did, so what's the big fuss?

D’Souza has spread some of the most vulgar lies about George Soros, including the very same ones recently promoted by Roseanne Barr. From Media Matters:

Author Dinesh D’Souza, speaking with C-SPAN at a FreedomFest event in July, claimed that his new book The Big Lie shows that billionaire philanthropist George Soros “was a kind of collection boy for Hitler” and that Soros admitted as much during an old interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes. D’Souza also claimed there was an “eerie parallel” between Soros and Josef Mengele, a physician at Auschwitz who selected victims for the gas chambers and performed deadly experiments on prisoners, because, D’Souza said, both defended their crimes by saying that if they hadn’t done them, someone else would have. Since the C-SPAN interview (and besides in his book), D’Souza has pushed the claim on Twitter, in The Daily Caller, and in an interview with far-right troll Stefan Molyneux.

It is absolutely unbelievable with that deplorable body of evidence that anyone would pardon this vile, hateful excuse for a human. And yet, here we are. None of this will stop until Congress acts like the check they were intended to be. The unraveling of our republic is happening before our very eyes and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are sitting on their hands.

Find a candidate and work your ass off. It’s time to wind down this dark chapter of American history and begin again.

==

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/roger-stone-says-trumps-most-recent-pardon-was-clear-signal-his-associates-and

From the moment President Donald Trump announced his pardon Thursday of conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, observers began pointing out that the move looked like an attempt to signal to his associates that he's willing to use the pardon power as a weapon against special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.

While those claims remained largely in the realm of speculation at first, by Thursday night one Trump ally, Roger Stone, told the Washington Post that he had received the message that loud and clear:

“It has to be a signal to Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort and even Robert S. Mueller III: Indict people for crimes that don’t pertain to Russian collusion and this is what could happen,” Stone said. “The special counsel has awesome powers, as you know, but the president has even more awesome powers.”

..

==

omgf mirror ~ djt nazi:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?431251-2/big-lie

coincide=ence t coates sherrod as 1st Bb attack)

regnery

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Lie-Exposing-Roots-American/dp/1621573486

bs blurb

"Of course, everything [D'Souza] says here is accurate... But it's not going to sit well with people on the American left who, of course, are portraying themselves as the exact opposite of all of this." —RUSH LIMBAUGH

The explosive new book from Dinesh D'Souza, author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers Hillary's America, America, and Obama's America.

What is "the big lie" of the Democratic Party? That conservatives—and President Donald Trump in particular—are fascists. Nazis, even. In a typical comment, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow says the Trump era is reminiscent of "what it was like when Hitler first became chancellor."

But in fact, this audacious lie is a complete inversion of the truth. Yes, there is a fascist threat in America—but that threat is from the Left and the Democratic Party. The Democratic left has an ideology virtually identical with fascism and routinely borrows tactics of intimidation and political terror from the Nazi Brownshirts.

To cover up their insidious fascist agenda, Democrats loudly accuse President Trump and other Republicans of being Nazis—an obvious lie, considering the GOP has been fighting the Democrats over slavery, genocide, racism and fascism from the beginning.

Now, finally, Dinesh D'Souza explodes the Left's big lie. He expertly exonerates President Trump and his supporters, then uncovers the Democratic Left's long, cozy relationship with Nazism: how the racist and genocidal acts of early Democrats inspired Adolf Hitler's campaign of death; how fascist philosophers influenced the great 20th century lions of the American Left; and how today's anti-free speech, anti-capitalist, anti-religious liberty, pro-violence Democratic Party is a frightening simulacrum of the Nazi Party. 

Hitler coined the term "the big lie" to describe a lie that "the great masses of the people" will fall for precisely because of how bold and monstrous the lie is. In The Big Lie, D'Souza shows that the Democratic Left's orchestrated campaign to paint President Trump and conservatives as Nazis to cover up its own fascism is, in fact, the biggest lie of all.

==

Long-debunked lie that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator resurfaces thanks to Dinesh D’Souza

Research ››› September 1, 2017 4:38 PM EDT ››› ALEX KAPLAN

Discredited conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza has revived the long-running and debunked claim that billionaire philanthropist George Soros collaborated with the Nazis as a child. The false claim comes as D’Souza has been trying to promote his latest book, which links Democrats to fascism and pushes the Soros lie. The smear, which has been invoked by other right-wing media figures in the past, has been repeatedly condemned by journalists. Nevertheless, other conservative media and GOP officials have run with D’Souza’s recycled and false charge.

Discredited author Dinesh D’Souza accuses George Soros of working with the Nazis

Dinesh D’Souza: George Soros was a “collection boy for Hitler” and is like Josef Mengele of Auschwitz. Author Dinesh D’Souza, speaking with C-SPAN at a FreedomFest event in July, claimed that his new book The Big Lie shows that billionaire philanthropist George Soros “was a kind of collection boy for Hitler” and that Soros admitted as much during an old interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes. D’Souza also claimed there was an “eerie parallel” between Soros and Josef Mengele, a physician at Auschwitz who selected victims for the gas chambers and performed deadly experiments on prisoners, because, D’Souza said, both defended their crimes by saying that if they hadn’t done them, someone else would have. Since the C-SPAN interview (and besides in his book), D’Souza has pushed the claim on Twitter, in The Daily Caller, and in an interview with far-right troll Stefan Molyneux. From C-SPAN’s coverage of FreedomFest on July 20, which aired on August 20:

PETER SLEN (HOST): In The Big Lie you also have a chapter on George Soros.

DINESH D’SOUZA: Yes. It’s not a chapter on Soros, but it’s a -- it’s a section on Soros because Soros claims to be the great anti-fascist. In fact, Soros funds a lot of the Antifa, anti-fascist parties. And what I do is I say, OK, well here’s some -- Soros will talk about, for example, the fact that he's inspired by libertarianism, by Karl Popper and the Open Society. In reality, as you look into Soros' past, his sort of secret history, if you will, you realize that Soros, along with a mentor of his, was a kind of collection boy for Hitler. This is seems harsh to say, but it’s true. It was discussed by Steve Kroft in an interview with Soros in which Kroft asked Soros --

SLEN: For 60 Minutes.

D’SOUZA: For 60 Minutes. He says, “You would go around confiscating the property of the Jews and turning it over to the Nazis, right? And how can you feel good about that?” And Soros goes, “I don't feel bad about that at all.” He goes, “Let's remember that if I didn't do it, somebody would do it,” right? Now this gets me thinking because, because I remember a very powerful scene. This actually involves Josef Mengele, the sort of killer of Auschwitz, the crazed doctor of Auschwitz. Mengele escaped after the war and went to Argentina, and one of his sons tracked him down and confronted his father and said, “Dad, how could you do the things you did in Auschwitz?” And guess what Mengele said? Mengele said, “If I didn’t do them, somebody else would have.” In other words, “Here were these captive people and I, as a scientist, simply saw the opportunity to make them into research specimens, so don't blame me because the bad stuff would have gone on anyway.” So here is an eerie parallel between what I would call the “Mengele defense” and George Soros, out of his own mouth, not as a young man. I don't blame anybody for what they did at the age of 15, but as a mature George Soros now reflecting upon his past, there's lots of dark secrets there. [C-SPAN, The Big Lie, 8/20/17; Twitter, 8/2/17, 8/14/17, 8/22/17, 8/24/17; The Daily Caller, 7/31/17; YouTube, 8/16/17; Media Matters, 4/26/17]

D’Souza has a history of making racist comments and pushing false claims and fringe conspiracy theories. D’Souza has repeatedly pushed false claims and conspiracy theories including that one of the main organizers of the white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, VA, was some kind of liberal double agent, that the Clintons were behind the death of a former Haitian government official, that former President Barack Obama is “anti-American” and "embraced a Third World ideology,” and that Hitler took three "very destructive, genocidal ideas from the Democratic Party” -- a claim he made recently, while promoting his new book. He also shared a fake photo of Obama with Soros, and he has a history of racism, writing about Obama on Twitter, “YOU CAN TAKE THE BOY OUT OF THE GHETTO,” comparing Obama’s father to Ebola, and writing that African-Americans are “better off as a consequence” of slavery. [Media Matters, 8/18/17, 7/18/17, 9/28/12, 2/18/15, 10/6/14, 7/9/14; Snopes, 8/25/17; Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/1/17]

D’Souza’s smear is an old right-wing lie that has been previously debunked

Soros did not admit to being a Nazi collaborator in a 60 Minutes interview. During his interview with 60 Minutes, Soros said yes specifically in response to Steve Kroft noting that “you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson … went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews,” not that he confiscated property himself. As Snopes noted, “Perhaps because of the way the 60 Minutes interview … was edited, or perhaps because Soros was blindsided by Steve Kroft’s accusatory line of questions, or both, his responses were contradictory and confusing. … Soros went on to clarify that he hadn’t actually participated in any confiscations.” Soros said, “I was only a spectator. I had no role in taking away that property, so I had no sense of guilt.” [Media Matters, 2/5/07, 11/10/10; Snopes, 11/28/16]

Soros biographer: Soros did not collaborate with the Nazis as a teenager. According to Michael Kaufman, the author of the biography Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Soros “collaborated with no one” during the Holocaust and was simply adopting a secret identity to protect himself while living with a Hungarian government official who was forced to confiscate property from a Jewish aristocrat. From Kaufman’s book:

While he was living with Baumbach as Sandor Kiss, an event occurred that more than a half a century later would become the basis of charges that George Soros, the international financier and billionaire, had somehow collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of his homeland and had exploited his fellow Jews. The issue was raised in a bizarre television profile and interview of Soros aired on the CBS television program 60 Minutes in December of 1998. In the segment, Steve Kroft, the interviewer, noted with prosecutorial gusto that George's father had "bribed a government official to swear that you were his godson," and added that this survival strategy "carried a heavy price tag." For, he continued, "as hundreds of thousands of Jews were being shipped off to the Nazi death camps, a thirteen-year-old George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his rounds, confiscating property from the Jews." Visibly dumbfounded by the line of questioning, Soros could only manage to say that he had no role in the seizure of property and was merely a spectator. To underscore Kroft's point, film footage showed masses of Hungarian Jews being led away at gunpoint.

This is what actually happened. Shortly after George went to live with Baumbach, the man was assigned to take inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin. The Kornfeld family had the wealth, wisdom, and connections to be able to leave some of its belongings behind in exchange for permission to make their way to Lisbon. Baumbach was ordered to go to the Kornfeld estate and inventory the artworks, furnishings, and other property. Rather than leave his "godson" behind in Budapest for three days, he took the boy with him. As Baumbach itemized the material, George walked around the grounds and spent time with Kornfeld's staff. It was his first visit to such a mansion, and the first time he rode a horse. He collaborated with no one and he paid attention to what he understood to be his primary responsibility: making sure that no one doubted that he was Sandor Kiss. Among his practical concerns was to make sure that no one saw him pee. [Media Matters, 12/8/10]

Glenn Beck pushed the smear in 2010, and journalists roundly condemned him

Then-Fox News host Glenn Beck in November 2010 falsely claimed Soros took “property from the Jews as a teenager.” Glenn Beck in November 2010 falsely claimed that Soros “had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors,” and that he admitted as such in the 60 Minutes interview. From his Fox News show:

GLENN BECK (HOST): But when he had to go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors who were being sent to the gas chambers, I can't imagine what that would do to a teenager, or anybody, an adult. Well, what did it do to George Soros? In an interview with Steve Kroft, Soros was asked if he felt guilt at all about taking the property from the Jews as a teenager. He responded, no. [Media Matters, 11/10/10]

New Yorker: Beck’s Nazi smear of Soros is “blood variety” “libel.” The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg condemned Beck for using a 1995 New Yorker article to criticize Soros, adding that his claim about Soros and the Nazis was “no ordinary libel—it’s more akin to the blood variety.” From the November 29, 2010, article:

Call us oversensitive, but when our efforts are shanghaied like a nineteenth-century sailor and forced to work as a deckhand aboard a ship of lies, we can’t help getting our hackles up. You don’t have to be a professional semiotician to see that the Glenn Beck promo is intended to leave the impression that George Soros, the hedge-fund investor and funder of anti-totalitarian and liberal causes, is an anti-Semite; that he was somehow complicit in the Holocaust; and that he is an enemy of Israel. These are lies—lies told by innuendo, but lies all the same.

[...]

The ugliest single sentence Beck uttered that week came on his radio program, which supplements his TV show. “Here’s a Jewish boy helping send the Jews to the death camps,” he said, referring to Soros, age thirteen. That’s no ordinary libel—it’s more akin to the blood variety. It was Beck’s ruminations on the Jewish Question that exhausted the patience of some conservatives, but that is a relatively minor aspect of his malicious crusade against Soros. [The New Yorker, 11/29/10]

Former ABC News reporter Kari Marton: “Beck's smearing of George Soros echoes the anti-Semitic attacks of the Hungarian far right.” Former ABC News reporter Kati Marton wrote a piece in The Daily Beast about Beck’s attacks on Soros. The piece’s subhed said the “smearing ... echoes the anti-Semitic attacks of the Hungarian far right and is a perverse twisting of his experience with the Nazis.” Marton wrote that Soros “acted as a messenger of the Budapest Jewish Council” and was “sent to alert Jews to report to various collection points around the city” but that he “urged defiance” instead. From the November 13, 2010, article:

I, however, find it impossible not to speak up when I hear the likes of Beck from the comfort of his armchair charge Soros with anti-Semitism. Beck paints Soros as a Nazi tool for having had the supreme nerve to survive Europe’s most violent Holocaust: the one that swept through Hungary under SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann during the summer and fall of 1944. Eichmann’s was a well-oiled machine by then, and he had to make quick work of Europe’s last remaining intact Jewish community. Even the most deluded Nazis knew the war was over, their cause lost. But Eichmann was determined to finish the job in Hungary. Only the most resourceful and the luckiest survived.

It is well known that the 14-year-old George Soros acted as a messenger of the Budapest Jewish Council, a group of aged and terrified elders who thought if they kept the city’s Jews calm, and followed the Gestapo’s every command, they might survive. Sent to alert Jews to report to various collection points around the city, the young Soros, prompted by his canny father, urged defiance instead. “There was one man I shall not forget,” Soros recalled, “I told him what my father had said. And he answered, ‘Tell your father that I am a law-abiding citizen, that I have always been a law-abiding citizen and that I am not going to start breaking the law now.'" We know how few of those law-abiding citizens survived Eichmann’s barbaric campaign to make Hungary Judenrein. The fact is that only by assuming false identities, through bribery and deception, could people survive that Kafkaesque nightmare. Andy Grove, the legendary founder of Intel, another young Budapest Jew, survived thus, as did my own parents. Raoul Wallenberg, the great Swedish humanitarian, performed his miracles in Budapest partly by forging passports and bribing Nazis. [The Daily Beast, 11/3/10]

The Nation’s Jonathan Schell: Beck’s Nazi attack on Soros was “especially vile” and constitutes “libel.” The Nation’s late correspondent Jonathan Schell wrote that Beck’s Nazi “libel” of Soros was “especially vile,” noting that Soros “never took any lands or anything else from Holocaust victims or anyone else.” From the December 2, 2010, article:

In a novel and especially vile (and also false) twist, Beck, while heaping the classic anti-Semitic slurs on Soros, insinuates that Soros, a Holocaust survivor, is himself anti-Semitic. Beck, who denies that he is an anti-Semite, accuses Soros of having had to “go over and take the lands from the people, his Jewish friends and neighbors, who were being sent to the gas chambers” when he was a boy in Hungary during World War II. (In reality, as Michael Kaufman reveals in his book Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire, Soros’s Christian protector was ordered to inventory the estate of a Jewish aristocrat who had escaped Hungary. He brought Soros, 13 at the time, with him. Soros wandered the estate and rode a horse. He never took any lands or anything else from Holocaust victims or anyone else.) In a perverse way, the libel is a perfect complement to the history of anti-Semitism: now the Jew is found to be guilty of, on top of all of history’s other evils, his own people’s persecution. [The Nation, 12/2/10]

The debunked smear has been around since at least 2006 and has been pushed by others besides Beck

...

https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2017/09/01/long-debunked-lie-george-soros-was-nazi-collaborator-resurfaces-thanks-dinesh-d-souza/217826

==

Fox Guest: Native American Genocide Didn't Happen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOYTI9Kn4bI

Published on Jul 4, 2014

Former Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers faced off with America director Dinesh D'Souza for an intense debate on The Kelly File tonight over whether America is a fundamentally good or an "inherently evil" nation. Ayers said America's done horrible things, while D'Souza argued America has done great things with his power that other countries would horribly abuse...

Published on Jun 6, 2014

Dinesh D'Souza, America: Imagine a World Without Her, joins Thom Hartmann. Dinesh D'Souza is one of the most outspoken conservative pundits in America - and he's just come out with a new book that says that progressives don't know anything about history? Is he serious? --> movie

==

==

moving pict inst?

--

amazing poster downloaded excorsist blatty "terrifying"

kelly file fox (obama film because he was unknown)

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4921678627001/dinesh-dsouza-previews-upcoming-film-hillarys-america/#sp=show-clips

==

Dinesh D'Souza ... 

Himself

Jonah Goldberg Jonah Goldberg ... 

Himself

Andrea Cohen Andrea Cohen ... 

Margaret Sanger

Peter Schweizer Peter Schweizer ... 

Himself

Mikaela Krantz Mikaela Krantz ... 

Young Hillary Clinton

Carol Swain Carol Swain ... 

Herself

Rebekah Turner Rebekah Turner ... 

Hillary Clinton

Jayvaugn Brown Jayvaugn Brown ... 

Young Barack Obama

Richard L. Olsen Richard L. Olsen ... 

Sen. Charles Sumner

Stuart Glass Stuart Glass ... 

Saul Alinsky

Marc Jeffreys Marc Jeffreys ... 

Frank Nitti

Michael Clemmons Michael Clemmons ... 

President Barack Obama

Howard Goldwaite Howard Goldwaite ... 

President Andrew Jackson

Stephen Loftin Stephen Loftin ... 

Young Saul Alinsky

Gidget Taylor Gidget Taylor ... 

Ida B. Wells (as Alesia Gidget Taylor)

Hillary’s America starts with a lounge pianist’s come-on: “You can always count on the Democratic party.” A sickly looking donkey puppet drops down and grotesquely dangles from the ceiling as a big band launches into “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Animated opening credits hint at the eras and topics Hillary’s America will touch upon: the Chicago mob during Prohibition, the Civil War, Barack Obama on some college campus in activist mode. How will these seemingly unrelated images be drawn together into a sustained attack on the Democratic party? That’s not any clearer by the end of Hillary’s America; as in his first two films, conservative polemicist Dinesh D’Souza (co-directing with longtime collaboratorBruce Schooley, who he met 17 years ago on a National Review cruise) presents a series of conspiratorial talking points familiar to Breitbart-oriented readers, but reshuffled in a new, startlingly illogical order.

In D’Souza’s previous film, America, he “disproved” five charges against America’s greatness, proving to his satisfaction that racism et al. were false targets of no lasting concern. The film climaxed with a bonus segment showing the first meeting between Hillary Clinton and community organizer/conservative bogeyman Saul Alinsky in a cafeteria shot through with blood-red light, visually rendering the latter as Satan.

Hillary’s America is a sort of double feature that picks up from there. Its first half is meant to make the case that the party of Lincoln is still the party of Lincoln and that Democrats are the true racists; its back half goes specifically after the presumptive Democratic candidate. The purely rhetorical argument that the “party of Lincoln” hasn’t wavered in character isn’t new; in 2013, continuing a newish post-federal election tradition, Rand Paul became the latest Republican to speak at Howard University to make that case to a crowd rightly skeptical of the idea that the GOP post-Nixon can claim legitimate continuity with its own past. Repetition of this facile argument is key, down to a speech given here by a pre-Civil War Republican: “We, the Republicans, are against slavery, and the Democrats are for slavery.”

The segments on slavery are vile, diving with no compunction into close-ups of black people being whipped and a selection of racist violence. These are still tough things to stage and watch, even when badly done; that Hillary’s America does so for no greater purpose other than, effectively, urging the election of Donald Trump speaks wretchedly of all involved. D’Souza undermines his putatively good intentions with a loud dog whistle when he repeatedly refers to slavery as “theft” and points out the story of one slave (owned by a Democrat, of course) punished for selling wares on the side. Entrepreneurial pluck, D’Souza is implying, was punished by Democrats from the get-go—they want to stop black folks from pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, and laziness has set in as a result. This is talking-points business as usual, in which any sign of a welfare state is in fact the manifestation of the “liberal plantation”—the real reason Democrats still enslave black voters, D’Souza says, and an argument he doesn’t bother to develop any further, its salience being already self-evident to target viewers.

Other images from D’Souza’s freewheeling parade through American history are comically grotesque, the sustained attack on Hillary Clinton a fever dream. A shot of Bill and spouse dancing and raising champagne flutes in the White House to celebrate some ghastly coup is entirely typical of D’Souza’s perspective: just shy of conspiracy theories about mysterious deaths and drug deals, but still safely in the realm of malignant fantasy. To reiterate the old canard that Margaret Sanger’s real mission was the extermination-via-abortion of black people, he stages her giving a speech on a porch deck, with a row of hooded KKK members sitting blithely before her. Sanger did indeed address the Klan—she’d speak with any organization receptive to learning about birth control—but it’s hardly a defining moment of her career; for D’Souza to stage this segment as a sinister extended tableau slides straight into a kind of Adult Swim absurdism, in which shots of an inadequate, orating Abraham Lincoln (Don Taylor) are assigned the same weight and importance in American history.

Taylor is a returning performer from America, a lanky void whose presence points to certain constants within the D’Souza Connected Universe: staggeringly unexciting talking-head interviews (give it up for the National Review’s Jonah Goldberg!); historical figures delivering long, oft-implausible harangues against cable-level backdrops; and—slightly less expected—musical numbers. In a presumable attempt to reclaim rock renditions of the National Anthem from the notedly unconservative Jimi Hendrix, America had an end credits rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” from all-in conservative Dave Mustaine. Hillary’s America ends with no less than three songs: “God Bless America” (sung by Debbie, D’Souza’s new wife), the national anthem once again, and an end credits song from the Gatlin brothers, the former two accompanied by montages of stock “American” imagery in a limited historical pocket—brave Revolutionary soldiers bouncing on horses, fireworks, etc.

That a film already busy with historical reenactments, interviews, and conspiracizing of the wildest sort should end with three consecutive musical numbers suggests a kind of vaudeville structure to D’Souza’s work. As the MC of this show, D’Souza places himself in the unwise position of sometimes having to act: The film’s prologue finds him incarcerated in a detention house, where a charismatic inmate, Roc (Corey Cotten), explains for him how crime works, and how the government is the biggest criminal of all. D’Souza’s facial expression never varies from sour nonplussed; complex emotions aren’t a possibility. There is a shot in one of the final montages, amid all the farms and fields, of D’Souza standing in a sunset-lit prairie, looking like a Terrence Malick outtake. This determinedly uncharismatic figure has now made himself the star of three consistently lunatic productions; this attempt to give himself a moment of poetry is one of Hillary’s America’s final and biggest inadvertent laughs.

==

Hillary’s America — A Two-by-Four Bashing Democrats

D’Souza links progressives’ sordid, racist past to the Clintons’ current corruption.

By John Fund — July 18, 2016

Dinesh D’Souza, the social commentator who shook up Hollywood with the $33 million earned by his Obama 2016 film, is back with Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

The film is his response to constant Democratic attacks on Republicans as racist, greedy, and callous toward minority interests. Hillary’s America takes a two-by-four to the racist, greedy, and callous episodes in the Democratic party’s past. He then links this history to Hillary Clinton’s progressive values and to her tutelage under radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.[gop bigger fans/implementors?]

It is over the top in places and definitely selective, but the troubling facts are accurate and extensively documented in the D’Souza book that accompanies the movie. The film is intensely patriotic, and D’Souza told me at the movie’s premiere at the GOP convention in Cleveland that it is a must-see for Americans. He believes Democrats this election year are trying to — in President Obama’s words — “fundamentally transform” America into something the Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize.

This isn’t just rhetorical overkill. Glenn Thrush reported this week in Politico on Obama’s agenda in the waning days of his presidency:

Obama’s ultimate goal in his final year has been strikingly ambitious, according to those I spoke with: not only blocking from office the birther who questioned his legitimacy as president, but preserving the Democratic Party’s hold over the presidency during an era of anti-establishment turbulence. Obama, always one to embrace a grand goal, talks in terms of creating “a 16-year era of progressive rule” to rival the achievements of Roosevelt-Truman and to reorient the country’s politics as a “Reagan of the left,” as one of his longtime White House advisers put it to me.

In 2014, D’Souza pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations in a case that may well have involved selective prosecution. He donated $20,000 to a Republican friend from Dartmouth, Wendy Long, who was running a sure-to-lose senatorial campaign against Kirsten Gillibrand in New York, though he never told Long he’d donated the money and he received nothing in return. D’Souza told me that his searing eight-month experience in a federal halfway house led him to draw his own conclusions about the ultimate goal of Hillary and Obama.

The film re-creates what he said he learned in federal “public housing.” He established a rapport with some of the thugs and con artists there and asked them how the gangs to which they belonged consolidated power. A fellow inmate named Rock told him that the con games the gangs practice involve promising people something for nothing, then cheating them while at the same time making them dependent on the gangs for protection. This eerily resembled the way the Democratic machines operated, D’Souza realized. But Democrats also had a broader ideological agenda: “What if the goal of the Democratic party is to steal the most valuable thing this world ever produced?” That would be the republic the Founding Fathers have handed down to us.

The film then shows D’Souza leaving his confinement and researching the history and methods of the Democratic party. In the film’s least convincing re-created scenes, he visits “Democratic Headquarters” and sneaks his way into a basement records room adorned by a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the openly racist president who was the founder of the Democratic party. While rummaging through the secrets of the records room, D’Souza learns that Jackson’s expulsion of the Indians to reservations in the 1830s was opposed by Republican congressman Davy Crockett; that northern Democrats were instrumental to slavery’s survival in the pre–Civil War era; that Democrats after the war voted against civil rights for blacks at the federal level; and that, after losing that fight, they managed to impose Jim Crow laws against blacks in the South.

RELATED: How the Clintons Got Rich Off of Poor Haitians

D’Souza then shifts his research to the office of Carol Swain, a black law professor at Vanderbilt University, who is a scholar of Democratic-party history. Swain is soft-spoken but devastating in her recitation of the facts. “It’s a sordid story,” she told me at the Cleveland premiere of the film. “Democrats have long practiced plantation politics while blocking economic opportunity for minorities.” She tells the story of Ida B. Wells, a brave black journalist who fought lynchings and challenged President Woodrow Wilson in the White House over his racist resegregation of the federal work force. Wilson ignored her entreaties and proceeded to host a White House screening of D. W. Griffith’s infamous film Birth of a Nation.

Hillary’s America also explores Franklin Roosevelt’s decision not to pursue anti-lynching laws and notes that it was Democrats who tried to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congressional Republicans supported it in greater percentages than Democrats did. D’Souza takes on the defense that modern Democrats typically call forth when confronted with their party’s racist roots: They claim that the two parties reversed positions on race, with northern Democrats becoming more progressive and southern Democrats simply becoming Republicans. Onetime segregationist Strom Thurmond did switch parties, D’Souza concedes, but he notes the fact that fewer than 1 percent of Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights followed Thurmond in joining the GOP. The rest remained Democrats until they exited politics.

D’Souza then extensively interviews National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, asking him about the connections he has drawn — in his book Liberal Fascism and elsewhere — between the Democratic party, Wilson, and birth-control advocate and eugenicist Margaret Sanger (the film shows Hillary Clinton lavishly praising Sanger). Goldberg was at the movie’s premiere and noted that it will no doubt receive abundant criticism. “You get the most flak when you are over the target,” he told the audience, to great cheering.

The film then takes a rather abrupt turn from history to focus on Hillary Clinton. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he notes, were acolytes of the great left-wing “community organizer” Saul Alinsky. D’Souza is the first filmmaker to mine the rich material showing the radicalism of Alinksy, who was personally tutored by Al Capone’s deputies in the tactics of the mob and whose most famous book, Rules for Radicals, begins with this epigraph to the most famous Machiavellian:

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

In Hillary’s America, the young Rodham is shown as she’s led from her roots as a “Goldwater Girl” into campus radicalism through meetings with Alinsky. Later, she would use her senior thesis at Wellesley to paint an admiring portrait of Alinsky. In a meeting with Alinsky, she chastises him for trying to pressure the establishment only from the outside, saying that some of his followers need to take over the government: “Then we can push from the inside.” But Hillary’s success on the “inside” seems to have brought her and her Clinton Foundation tens of millions in personal wealth rather than any substantive policy accomplishments.

The film then plunges into what it calls the more troubling aspects of the “Clinton partnership,” portraying Bill Clinton as a sexual predator surrounded by women in black dresses slinking out of cars and hotels. The real red meat comes as Hillary is portrayed as throwing things around the White House and generally enabling Bill’s behavior, which possibly includes rape. D’Souza ends his roasting of Hillary by denouncing her for her “hateful rhetoric” and labeling the Clintons “depraved crooks” who will “turn all of America into a plantation” if they get back in the White House.

RELATED: The Dirty Business of the Billary Machine, Again

At this point the film is definitely downbeat, but in ends with a stirring rendition of patriotic songs, beautiful shots of patriotic themes, and an original song from the Gatlin Brothers. The audience that streamed out of the Cleveland premiere felt energized rather than depressed by the film. Bob Unruh, a relative of the legendary California Democratic boss Jesse Unruh, told me: “The movie told it like it is. Machine rule is at the heart of the modern Democrats.” Several viewers said they took away the message that America is worth saving, and that we have the tools to do so in our DNA, if only we have a large voter turnout in November.

The intenselyanti-PC message of Hillary’s America obviously means it will be savaged by critics and ignored by much of the news media. Peter Sobczynski, a film critic writing at Roger Ebert’s site said that it “may well be the single dumbest documentary that I have ever seen in my life — nearly two hours of poisonous bluster and anti-historical rhetoric.”

Of course, Sobczynski doesn’t like the film’s politics, and they certainly aren’t weak tea. Parts of Hillary’s America verge on demagoguery. But the dictionary definition of demagoguery describes it as the methods used to “appeal to popular desires and prejudices.” Hillary’s America won’t change long-settled opinions about Hillary, but it will probably raise doubts in the minds of independent voters who see it. As for the base of conservative Americans, the movie will inspire them to get to the polls in November, despite the flaws of Donald Trump.

— John Fund is NRO’s national-affairs correspondent.

==

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437883/hillarys-america-secret-history-democratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

==

==

https://www.amazon.com/Stealing-America-Experience-Criminal-Democratic/dp/0062366718

broadside books

WHY HILLARY, OBAMA, AND THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE NO BETTER THAN A GANG OF THIEVES

In the fall of 2014, outspoken author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza found himself hauled into federal court for improperly donating money to an old friend’s Senate campaign. D’Souza pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight months in a state-run confinement center.  There he lived among hardened criminals—drug dealers, thieves, gangbangers, rapists, and murderers. Now the bestselling author explains how this experience not only changed his life, but fundamentally transformed his view of his adopted country.

Previously, D’Souza had seen America through the eyes of a grateful immigrant who became successful by applying and defending conservative principles. Again and again, D’Souza made the case that America is an exceptional nation, fundamentally fair and just. In book after book, he argued against liberalism as though it were a genuine movement of ideas capable of being engaged and refuted.

But his prolonged exposure to the criminal underclass provided an eye-opening education in American realities. In the view of hardened criminals, D’Souza learned, America is anything but fair and just. Instead, it is a jungle in which various armed gangs face off against one another, with the biggest and most powerful gangs inhabiting the federal government. As for American liberalism, it is not a movement of ideas at all but a series of scams and cons aimed at nothing less than stealing the entire wealth of the nation, built up over more than two centuries: the total value of the homes, the lifelong savings of the people, the assets of every industry, and all the funds allocated to health and education and every other service, both public and private. “The thieves I am speaking about want all of it.”

And who are the leading figures in this historically ambitious scam that has turned the federal government into a vast and unprecedented shakedown scheme? Why, none other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – the current leaders of the Democratic Party. This pair of smooth-talking con artists, trained in the methods of radical activist Saul Alinsky, have taken his crude but effective political shakedown techniques to a level even he never dreamed of.

As the nation approaches a crucial election in 2016, Stealing Americais an urgent wakeup call for all Americans who want to prevent this theft from being completed by eight more years of Democratic rule.

About the Author

Dinesh D’Souza is a number one New York Timesbestselling author and the filmmaker behind the hit documentaries 2016: Obama’s Americaand America,which are respectively the second-highest- and the sixth highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. In his twenty-five-year career as a writer, scholar, and public intellectual, D’Souza has been a policy analyst in the Reagan White House and a John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His bestselling books include America, Obama’s America, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, What’s So Great About Christianity, and Illiberal Education.

==

PENSION 169: paper to intern fellow at aei, u chic, ctt, admin post (each strain of rw has its own places). columns, fox, speechs eg D'Souza (bio of falwell)

==

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what-happened-to-dinesh-dsouza/374939/

What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 1/8

In the 1980s, Dinesh D’Souza received some advice from his editor. “Write for the

critics. The success of your book will depend on book reviews,” D’Souza recalled

Adam Bellow of the Free Press telling him. D’Souza was in no position to argue. His

previous books had not sold well, and as a young star in the conservative

firmament, he wanted to burst into a bigger intellectual universe. So D’Souza took

What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza?

At the peak of his powers, the conservative author's strength was engaging with

his critics. Now he's content inside the right-wing bubble.

M A R K S T R I C H E R Z

J U L 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 | P O L I T I C S

Lucas Jackson/Reuters/The Atlantic

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 2/8

the path of humility: He followed Bellow’s advice, which was strategic as much as it

was intellectual. Bellow recalled advising D’Souza and other controversial authors

that their works should “hew to a high standard of argumentation and should be

written to persuade an intelligent and open-minded adversary. That way, when

they indignantly attack you, they only expose their own close-minded prejudice.”

In the spring of 1991, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus was

published. It was immediately successful. The Atlantic ran an excerpt. The eminent

historian C. Vann Woodward wrote a long, favorable review of the book in The New

York Review of Books. “… [O]ne need not be a right winger to be concerned about the

problems D’Souza raises, however welcome he may be as an ally,” Woodward

wrote. The book stayed on The New York Times’ bestseller list for 15 weeks.

D'Souza was a young, non-white,Ivy League-educated

conservative immigrant arguing within the tradition of

liberal education.

D’Souza’s decision to stay humble and write for the critics helped make Illiberal

Education a success, but his background and hard work helped too. Born in

Mumbai in 1961, D’Souza was a rare prodigy. He was a young, non-white, Ivy

League-educated conservative immigrant arguing within the tradition of liberal

education. His criticisms of political correctness and multiculturalism could be not

dismissed as the work of a has-been or crypto-racist. “I especially empathize with

minority students, who seek to discover principles of equality and justice that go

considerably beyond the acquisition of vocational skill,” he wrote in Illiberal

Education.

Raised in a Catholic household and educated by Spanish Jesuits, D’Souza was also

a Christian public intellectual of erudition and wisdom. He cited Simone Weil and

Reinhold Niebuhr in his books as easily as he did Scripture. His main criticism of

the Reverend Jerry Falwell was the minister’s tendency to let his conservatism get

the best of his Christianity. A passage from his first book, Falwell Before the

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 3/8

Millennium: A Critical Biography, illuminates D’Souza’s own recent work:

In Reinhold Niebuhr’s words, “Political controversies are always

conflicts between sinners, and not between righteous men and sinners.”

Falwell is in the pulpit. The Bible speaks of good and evil, and in the

Bible the two do not mix. But in politics, distinctions are often less vivid.

Falwell’s rhetoric, however, frequently does not distinguish between

liberals, socialists, and Communists. He sometimes regards his enemies

as opposing not just his programs, but God Himself. So he demonizes his

critics the way they do him.

At 53, D’Souza looks only slightly older than he did a generation ago. His hair is

graying at the temples and his face has gotten fuller. His sympathies and work ethic

have not changed much either. But he has expanded his range from author and

public speaker to filmmaker, serving as a writer and director of both 2016: Obama’s

America and America: Imagine a World Without Her.

He has also struck a series of road bumps. In October 2012, D’Souza was forced to

step down as president of Kings College in Manhattan after running afoul of the

evangelical school’s sexual mores; he divorced his wife of two decades; and he pled

guilty to using straw donors to aid the candidacy of Wendy Long, a friend who ran

for the U.S. Senate in 2012. In the eyes of progressives, those sins and crimes made

D’Souza a moral hypocrite and phony. In the eyes of critics, he trots out straw men

rather than concrete arguments. But both were symptoms rather than causes of his

change intellectually (and perhaps spiritually) from a generation ago. D’Souza has

not so much broken bad as fallen victim to pride.

"It was my very first book,

" D'Souza said recently of

Illiberal Education. Exceptit wasn't.

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 4/8

“It was my very first book,” D’Souza said recently of Illiberal Education, smiling

nostalgically at the thought of the critical and financial success it received. Except it

wasn’t. In addition to the Falwell book, he had written a book on the great works of

the Catholic intellectual tradition and co-edited another that boasted an

introduction from no less a Republican titan than Richard M. Nixon. The

chronological order of the books does not matter, but D’Souza’s belief that Illiberal

Education was his first is a window into his mind. He is more than an author. His

books have massive appeal to Fox News viewers; he refers to the ones that did not

as his “pre-books.”

Whatever the view of his critics on the left or right—and in the

last five years nearly all have heaped scorn on The Roots of Obama’s

Rage and Obama’s America—he plays to the crowd. “The book industry was

changing after Illiberal Education, and I found out you could make money by not

writing for the critics, that book reviews didn’t matter,” D’Souza said.

D’Souza said those words at a Ralph Reed-organized forum in Washington, D.C.,

one Saturday morning in late June. D’Souza spoke at the conference twice that day.

The first time he appeared on the stage of the Regency ballroom inside the Omni

Shoreham Hotel, members of the audience did not simply cheer. They stood up

and applauded. Afterwards, he repaired to a narrow, windowless lobby to sign his

new book. At 10:27 a.m., 11 copies of America: Imagine a World Without Her were

stacked untidily on a makeshift table to his left.

Over the next half hour, the

number of copies dwindled to three or four. The (white) movement conservatives at

the conference gobbled them up—a middle-aged man in blue jeans and T-shirt who

asked D’Souza to pose for a selfie; two pretty brunettes wearing broad smiles who

looked to be in their twenties and thirties; and several middle-aged women.

Movement conservatives’ love for D’Souza is no joke. 2016 made $33.4 million at

the box office, the second highest total for a political documentary of all time.

America is expected to fall short of that lofty total, but has a realistic shot at grossing

$25 million, a sum that would make it the third biggest political documentary of all

time.

The movement has provided D’Souza with at least one collaborator too. While he

used to seek the help of the historian Gordon Wood, now he works with Bruce

Schooley, who hovered near D’Souza in a lobby of the Omni Shoreham wearing an

aqua-blue suit. D’Souza met the middle-aged Bay Area resident on a National

Review cruise 15 years ago, and they’ve worked together on several projects since;

Schooley served as an executive producer and writer on America. D’Souza has said

Schooley is “really an entrepreneur of ideas.” Among those ideas is the FlipTree,

an artificial Christmas tree Schooley designed and marketed after surviving a bout

with cancer. D’Souza showed his appreciation for his friend’s product by endorsing

it in a YouTube video last year. “Once you roll the tree to where you want it, you just

take off the bag and flip; no more heavy tree parts or complicated electrical cords,”

D’Souza tells the camera without irony.

Yet D’Souza, though long close to the movement—he served as a domestic adviser

in the Reagan White House—was always careful not to make it an exclusive

relationship.

His early books kept conservatives at arm’s length and reached out to critics in the

center. Illiberal Education was a work of solid journalism. D’Souza traveled to the

campuses of five prestigious universities and interviewed students and faculty at

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 6/8

length, and before he submitted his final draft, he sent out chapters for review to

dozens of intellectuals and prestigious journalists, including Jonathan Rauch and

the late William Raspberry.

D’Souza broke with critics in the center after the publication of his follow-up,

1995’s The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society,a work of even more

prodigious scholarship (the book had 46 pages of footnotes). “I wanted to leave no

stone unturned: to go where the truth led me,” D’Souza recalled. “I argued that if

racism had a beginning, it can have an end … For me, race is like bushy eyebrows.

It’s nothing.” But his argument struck black conservatives as a dog whistle to the

David Dukes of America. D’Souza used such words as “parasitic” to describe

blacks’ relationship with government. He absolved non-blacks of responsibility for

helping the black poor.

By now a believer that book sales were not wedded to the

judgments of book critics, D'Souza decided to stop writing

for them.

In October 1995, writer Glenn Loury and community builder Robert L. Woodson

Sr. announced they were resigning their posts at the American Enterprise Institute

because D’Souza was a fellow there. D’Souza took the episode as proof that critics

outside the conservative orbit were committed more to a political agenda than the

truth with a capital “T.” Already a recent convert to the idea that book sales were

not wedded to critics’ judgments, D’Souza decided to stop writing with one eye on

the reaction of critics.

Sometimes, conservative authors have broken new intellectual ground despite

unhinged reactions from critics on the left and the center. Witness “The Negro

Family: The Case for National Action,” Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s 1965 report on

the parlous state of the black family, which was considered so incendiary that Ivy

League professors and students prevented Moynihan from speaking on their

campuses. Today, Moynihan’s report is viewed as prophetic.

Yet failing to take on the best arguments of the other side—“to play Notre Dame” in

the words of Charlie Peters, editor emeritus of Washington Monthly—carries risks.

D’Souza’s subsequent books and films testify to the intellectual pitfalls of ignoring

the critics. His demonization of President Obama is a case in point. In the

book Obama’s America, D’Souza wrote that “Obama is not merely the presiding

instrument of American decline, he is the architect of American decline. He wants

America to be downsized.” This claim is problematic, to put it mildly. The jobless

rate has declined from 7.8 percent in January 2009 to 6.1 percent in June; the

administration’s bailout of General Motors helped revive the car industry; and the

editors of The Economist concluded recently that “reports of the death of American

influence in the Middle East are exaggerated.”

In the movie America, D’Souza ridicules Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment

in July 2012. “What he’s saying is that [the business] was not earned but stolen,”

D’Souza says. However offensive to entrepreneurs Obama’s comment was, the

context of the quote was Obama’s argument that the federal government helps

individuals and businesses succeed by helping create infrastructure like public

schools, the Internet, and roads. “The point is,” Obama said, “is that when we

succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do

things together.”

At times, America lives up to D’Souza’s old intellectual standards. He meets in

person with left-wing critics, including Ward Churchill,a former professor of

ethnic studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. He argues persuasively that

Alexis de Tocqueville is a more reliable guide than Howard Zinn to troubling

episodes in early American history such as slavery and the treatment of Native

Americans. D’Souza admits he improperly helped Senate candidate Wendy Long in

2012.

In fact, America contains a brief scene in which D’Souza is shown wearing

handcuffs in a room that looks like a jail or prison cell. But is this real humility or a

Uriah Heep act? D’Souza’s pride, his belief he needs neither intellectual nor moral

critics, has brought about his fall from the first rank of conservative intellectuals.

7/21/2016 What Happened to Dinesh D'Souza? ­ The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/what­happened­to­dinesh­dsouza/374939/ 8/8

That's a shame, because if he'd stayed humble D'Souza could have reached an

exalted status.

A B O U T THE A U THO R

MARK STRICHERZ is the Washington bureau chief for The Colorado Observer and the author of Why

the Democrats Are Blue.

==

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/dinesh_dsouza_gets_duped_tweets_photoshopped_photo_of_hillary_clinton_with_confederate_flag/

...

In 2014, D’Souza was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement centeras part of five years of probation for violating federal campaign finance laws. In an interview in the latest issue of the New York Times Magazine, D’Souza said “If you put my rap sheet alongside the Clinton rap sheet, I think that would be almost a prima facie case that they have gotten away with far more than I have.”

UPDATE: D’Souza issued a “correction” on Facebook, leaving the photoshopped image of the Confederate flag up but writing, “even if the #ConfederateFlag was edited into this Hillary photo, WHAT is going on with those glasses and that hairdo?”

==

alternet 9/14

Dinesh D’Souza sees similarity between ISIS and Ferguson protestors.

Conservative commentator and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza also had some thoughts this week. That is almost never a good thing. When thoughts rattle around D’Souza’s feverish brain, weird connections get made, and then D’Souza is apt to voice those thoughts and connections, which are uniformly nutso. This week, D’Souza thought he saw a connection between ISIS fighters and Ferguson protestors. This is certifiably insane. We’re hoping we don’t have to explain why. Here is what he said on NewsMaxTV’s Steve Malzberg’s show:

“The common thread between ISIS and what’s going on in Ferguson is you have these people who basically believe that to correct a perceived injustice, it’s perfectly okay to inflict all types of new injustices.”

(Notice, again, the use of the phrase “these people,” the equivalent of sticking a Post-It on your forehead that says, “I’m a stupid racist.”)

“Behead guys who had nothing to do with it. Go and loot shops from business owners who were not part of the original problem whatsoever.”

See the similarities?

We realize that D’Souza needs to kill time while he waits to be sentenced for violating campaign finance law and lying about it. But, thinking, making absurd connections and saying them aloud is not the way to go.

==

alternet; Then came Obama's election, the Zapruder tape for the right's tin-foil hat haberdashers – a moment in history that both explained and exacerbated America's supposed decline. Dinesh D'Souza, the Oliver Stone of the Tea Party,  has now made two movies about the meaning of Obama's presidency. The first, 2016: Obama's America,  garnered an astounding $33m at the box office, and his lawyers blamed disappointing returns from this summer's America  on a :{Google conspiracy:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}: to confuse moviegoers about its showtimes. (Of course.)

==

==

11 Conservatives Claim Indictment Of Obama-Hater Dinesh D'Souza Is Conspiracy (Video)

By Michael Allen, Sat, January 25, 2014

Political conservative, author and anti-Obamafilmmaker Dinesh D'Souza was charged yesterday for allegedly violating federal campaign finance laws.

According to TalkingPointsMemo.com, D'Souza "was charged with one count of making more than $10,000 of contributions in the names of others and one count of causing false statements."

D'Souza allegedly encouraged other people (straw donors) to give $20,000 to a U.S. Senate candidate and then paid them back for their donations, notes The New York Times.

Federal election laws ban "straw donors" and limit individual donations to $5,000 for any one candidate.

The candidate, who got the donations, was reportedlyRepublican Wendy Long,a longtime friend of D'Souza, who lost in a 2012 race against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

D'Souza's debunked, but highly-grossing 2012 documentary, "2016: Obama's America," made him a hero to Republicans, even after he left his wife for a woman twenty years younger, noted the Daily Mail.

MediaMatters.org now reports that the indictment of D'Souza is being called a conspiracy by his conservative defenders.

Matt Drudge of the right wing Drudge Report tweeted, "They are going after the Obama critics with indictments. VA Gov. Now Dinesh D'Souza. Holder unleashing the dogs."

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones told viewers in a video (below) yesterday, "The issue is here, they can find a mistake in your checking account and claim that it was fraud or wire fraud. They can do it to anybody. This is like Nazi Germany. Once they're done with these guys, they're coming after you and I."

On her radio show this morning (audio below), conservative host Laura Ingraham, a former girlfriend of D'Souza, said that his indictment "is more about stifling political dissent and intimidating other people from speaking out than it is about any real serious allegation of wrongdoing."

Sources: Daily Mail, The New York Times, TalkingPointsMemo.com, MediaMatters.org, Twitter

==

2. King’s College: In 1997, the Campus Crusade for Christ International purchased King’s College, a New Jersey-based school that had been shuttered since 1944, and reestablished it on two floors of the Empire State Building in New York City. Led byDinesh D’Souza, author of a book this year arguing that President Obama’s Kenyan heritage gives him a third world “anti-colonial” mindset, the school has gained a reputation for training dogmatically conservative Christian activists.

new video attacks BO  http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/27/fear-and-loathing-in-2016-obamas-america/189581

The movie argues that President Obama's true ideology (inherited from his absentee father) is a "failed Third-World collectivism" that seeks to reduce America's stature in the world, as evidenced (in part) by Obama's determination to "lower NASA's horizons" so that it no longer exists as a symbol of American greatness. And this might be a compelling argument had NASA not just successfully deposited a Volkswagen-sized robot with a rock-vaporizing laser on the surface of Mars a few weeks ago.

Similarly, D'Souza's film argues that this "Third-World anti-American" viewpoint of the president's leads him to be "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis" captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, outside the movie theaters, news broke this weekend of an air strike that killed a senior Taliban official in Pakistan. (The obvious counterexample, Osama bin Laden's demise, doesn't merit mention in the film)

But again, to merely point out these untimely real-world inconsistencies is to do this movie a favor. 2016 is an outgrowth of D'Souza's 2010 book, The Roots Of Obama's Rage, a controversial and much-derided tome in which D'Souza laid out his hypothesis that Obama's actions are best explained by the aforementioned "collectivist" worldview he inherited from Barack Obama Sr. As Slate's Dave Weigel pointed out after viewing the movie's July premier, some of the blatantly false and risible elementsof Roots didn't make it into 2016, but there's still plenty of nonsense to fill out an 89-minute documentary.

The first 20 minutes or so of the movie aren't actually about President Obama. They're about D'Souza himself. He leads us down a hurried biography of his life, starting with his birth in Mumbai, focusing heavily on his education at Dartmouth and Stanford, and moving on to his time spent working for the Reagan White House. (D'Souza prides himself on being a die-hard Reaganite, which I'll come back to in a moment.) The intended message is unmistakable: Dinesh D'Souza is smart. He knows his stuff. Trust what he's about to tell you, no matter how insane it might sound.

Then we ease into the crazy. Parts of the first half of the film could be described as "playful." D'Souza bounds from Indonesia to Hawaii to Kenya, retracing the arc of Obama's existence and hamming it up for the camera as he learns to hula dance and climbs onto the back of a moped in Jakarta. Interspersed are segments of Dinesh D'Souza: Journalist, in which he interviews a psychologist who specializes in child abandonment and an academic who knew Obama's mother and stepfather.

This thin veneer of competence gets completely washed away, however, when D'Souza visits the Obama family in Kenya, showing up at the home of Obama's stepmother seeking an interview and offering three goats as payment. It doesn't go well. D'Souza and his entourage are turned down and told to leave by security personnel.

But he did manage to score an interview with one member of the extended Obama family: the president's half-brother George Obama. A community organizer who lives in the slums of Nairobi, George figures prominently in D'Souza's theory, with the documentarian using him primarily as a vehicle to attack the president for not "lift[ing] a finger to help a destitute close relative." (George has told reporters that he chooses to live in poverty to identify with the people he tries to help.) In the interview, D'Souza asks George why he thinks his powerful brother hasn't helped him, to which George responds: "He has a family of his own. I am of older age. I can help myself." D'Souza tries again, desperate to get George to validate his theory of the president's callousness, but George won't cooperate. "He's got other issues to take care of," George says.

From there we're treated to a reenactment of Obama grieving over his father's grave (Obama himself provides the narration, courtesy of the Dreams from My Fatheraudiobook), which serves as the dramatic, intellectually vacant set-up for D'Souza's primary argument: that Obama has adopted his father's political and economic philosophy and is inflicting it upon America, enforcing a sort of global penance for the sins of colonialism as a way of securing his deceased father's love and respect. This is where things really go off the rails.

D'Souza provides us a dossier for each of "Obama's Founding Fathers," drawn from the well-worn rogues gallery of intellectuals and fringe characters (Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc.), combined with the standard-issue warning that "we haven't seen the real Obama." He whips up some apocalyptic rhetoric about the debt, saying Obama will use it as a "weapon of mass destruction" to tank the country, and his discussion of the debt with former U.S Comptroller General David Walker is accompanied by -- and I'm being completely serious here -- high-pitched slasher-film music. (The fact that Walker also lays blame for reckless spending at the feet of George W. Bush does nothing to dampen D'Souza's enthusiasm.)

He whacks Obama for "blocking" the Keystone pipeline (not true) while loaning "billions of dollars" to Brazil to pursue offshore drilling (also not true). There's a bit ofGlenn Beck-inspired paranoia as snaking thorns of red, black, and green encircle the Middle East and North Africa, forming the new "United States of Islam." This in turn leads to fearmongering about Iran's nuclear ambitions, and attacks on Obama for a) doing "nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear progress (not exactly true), and b) seeking to reduce nuclear stockpiles globally.

Here's where D'Souza's Reagan boosting comes back to bite him. The documentary attacks Obama for signing the New START Treaty with Russia, which calls for steep reductions in both countries' nuclear stockpiles, and mocks the president for his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. "Dreamy idea," D'Souza quips, sparing no sarcasm. Unmentioned is the fact that the abolition of nuclear weapons was also the stated dream of... Ronald Reagan, who first proposed the original START Treaty with the Soviet Union. As Reagan told the nation in a January 1984 speech: "My dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth."

So 2016 suffers a great deal from logical inconsistency and factual error, but what did the audience think? After a well-attended showing in northern Virginia I chatted with two women from Arlington, both white and above middle-age, who came to the movie having never heard of Dinesh D'Souza but wanting to know more about President Obama. "I thought it was dramatic and scary," said one, who thought D'Souza offered "a very reasonable explanation for what's happening."

wreck crew; JA and JA reorg C Rep from resume pad social club to grassroots; took over from YAF shock troop BG JA set up fake beastiality clubs to discredit gays, also d'souza [stole info from gay org and published, thus outing ppl]

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves ...

By Thomas Frank

Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative author.

Contents[hide]

D'Souza's Wealth

D'Souza's handful of conservative books, combined with his conservative-sponsored business and campus lectures, have generated extensive liberal criticism. They also have made him fabulously wealthy.

According to an April 2005 issue of The San Diego Reader:

"Since Dartmouth, the conservative fray has been quite remunerative for D'Souza. Six years ago, he and his wife bought their home in Fairbanks Ranch (California). The nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where they keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS. A circular drive fronts the French country stone house. The cathedral-like front room, with its full-length mirrors and tapestries, has an 18th-century French decor of (veneered) golden maple burl furniture. The slick floors echo like a museum as one walks through. In his office, there's wall-to-wall leopard-print carpet; floor-to-ceiling bookcases are stocked with titles in history, politics, and philosophy. The view out back features a bright blue pool and the arboretum-like landscape."[1].

On Race Politics

Under D'Souza's editorship, the Dartmouth Review became notorious both for its attacks on alleged liberal bias at the university and for its provocative articles on racial topics. It published a parody titled "Dis Sho Ain't No Jive Bro," which mocked the way African-American students supposedly speak. ("Dese boys be sayin' that we be comin' here to Dartmut an' not takin' the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea' dey all be co'd in da ground, six feet unda, and whatchu be askin' us to learn from dem?") Also during his tenure as editor, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, the Review "published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree."

D'Souza's key work is the 700-page The End of Racism, a book that managed to offend even conservative blacks with its declaration that black culture is pathologically inferior to white culture and that "the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western civilization"(p. 527). D'Souza's history of southern segregation characterized it as merely misguided paternalism, "based on the code of the Christian and the gentleman" and intended to protect blacks: "Segregation was intended to assure that blacks, like the handicapped, would be insulated from the radical racists and - in the paternalist view - permitted to perform to the capacity of their arrested development" (p. 179). The book's declarations were so extreme that two prominent African-American conservatives, Robert Woodson, Sr. and Glenn Loury, renounced their affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute to protest AEI's sponsorship of the book. According to Loury, AEI marketed The End of Racism extensively in business circles, and "Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are said to have eagerly anticipated how the book might move the affirmative action debate in the 'right direction.'"

Like many modern race-baiters, D'Souza hedges his inflammatory language with just enough caveats to justify apologetics. His reference to the "criminal and irresponsible black underclass" is preceded by the phrase "for many whites." After this passage was criticized by Glenn Loury, D'Souza responded that Loury had "completely lost" this "distinction" between his own views and those of "many whites" (The End of Racism, p. xx). In the original passage on page 527, however, D'Souza goes on to declare his essential agreement with the views that he attributes to whites. "If this is true," the passage continues, "the best way to eradicate beliefs in black inferiority is to remove their empirical basis. ... [I]f blacks as a group can show that they are capable of performing competitively in schools and the work force, and exercising both the rights and responsibilities of American citizenship, then racism will be deprived of its foundation in experience."

The End of Racism also suggests that laws like the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be repealed on the grounds that they are often misused as political weapons rather than for the the actual protection of civil rights. D'Souza's website declares that "the American obsession with race is fueled by a civil rights establishment that has a vested interest in perpetuating black dependency." [2]

[The Civil Rights Movement] sought to undermine white racism through a protest strategy that emphasized the recognition of basic rights for blacks, without considering that racism might be fortified if blacks were unable to exercise their rights effectively and responsibly.Most African American scholars simply refuse to acknowledge the pathology of violence in the black underclass, apparently convinced that black criminals as well as their targets are both victims: the real culprit is societal racism. Activists recommend federal jobs programs and recruitment into the private sector. Yet it seems unrealistic, bordering on the surreal, to imagine underclass blacks with their gold chains, limping walk, obscene language, and arsenal of weapons doing nine-to-five jobs at Procter and Gamble or the State Department.Increasingly it appears that it is liberal antiracism that is based on ignorance and fear: ignorance of the true nature of racism, and fear that the racist point of view better explains the world than its liberal counterpart.The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.The popular conception seems to be that American slavery as an institution involved white slaveowners and black slaves. Consequently, it is easy to view slavery as a racist institution. But this image is complicated when we discover that most whites did not own slaves, even in the South; that not all blacks were slaves; that several thousand free blacks and American Indians owned black slaves. An examination of these frequently obscured aspects of American slavery calls into question the facile equation of racism and slavery.If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?How did Martin Luther King succeed, almost single-handedly, in winning support for his agenda? Why was his Southern opposition virtually silent in making counterarguments?

In a live chat with washingtonpost.com on Ronald Reagan, D'Souza wrote that blacks rejected Reagan because Reagan felt that what you could do was important, not your race, and blacks disagreed.

Dryden, N.Y.: A difficult question. Watching the SIMI viewing I have been struck by the overwhelming whiteness of the crowd. This to me is one dark facet of the Reagan legacy, a man who chose to start his campaign in Philadelphia, Miss. (where three civil rights workers were murdered). Why do you think he was so tone deaf on the vital American issue of race?Dinesh D'Souza: Reagan had an unfailingly inclusive vision of America. His view was that it didn't matter where you came from or who you were. What mattered was what you could do. Immigrants found this appealing. Blacks in general didn't. Blacks are at a peculiar point in their history where many of them believe that "race does matter" and "race should matter." A different vision from what Martin Luther King held in his "I Have a Dream" speech. So Reagan didn't reject blacks, blacks rejected Reagan. It's unfortunate, but I don't think it tells against Reagan. Maybe there will be some reconsideration of Reagan now by African Americans.

Outing gays at Dartmouth

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza stole correspondence from the school's Gay Student Alliance and published it, outing several gay students to friends and family and driving one to consider suicide. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.

Movie appearances

Dinesh D'Souza is set to appear in the forthcoming documentary,Michael Moore Hates America.

Books

References

rationalwiki 715

Dinesh D'Souza (born 1961) is a prolific author, public speaker, filmmaker and convicted felon. D'Souza writes mostly on Christian apologetics and has debated religious issues with notable atheists including Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Michael Shermer. He produced a documentary about Barack Obama, alleging that Obama is primarily motivated by "anti-colonialist" fervor... which, ironically, is something you would expect every president to have (not to mention D'Souza himself, having been born and raised in an ex-colony, India). Bringing D'Souza to prominence is perhaps one of William F. Buckley's mistakes he might want to take back.

D'Souza was the president of King's College, an accredited Christian college located in the Empire State Building, but resigned after admitting to an extramarital affair.[1]

In January 2014, D'Souza was indicted by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney for laundering campaign contributions for a Republican Senate candidate.[2] In May 2014, he pleaded guilty to avoid a more serious charge that carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.[3] On September 23, 2014, he was sentenced to 5 years of probation. During the sentencing hearing, a letter from his ex-wife was read in which she stated, "It is my former husband who has an abusive nature. In one instance, it was my husband who physically abused me in April 2012 when he, using his purple belt karate skills (which is pretty low ranking belt, BTW), kicked me in the head and shoulder, knocking me to the ground and creating injuries that pain me to this day."[4]

Contents [hide]

[edit]Public Positions

:{

D'Souza is a staunch neoconservative, and began his public career while still at Dartmouth College, writing for conservative publications like the Dartmouth Review, which became notorious for its racist andhomophobic content under D'Souza's editorship, and The Prospect.[5] In this period, he criticized Dartmouth's policy of Affirmative Action and used the publication to attack gay rights and gay students.

}:Social Issues

In one issue of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza published an interview with a Ku Klux Klan leader. However, far from being controversy-seeking and "edgy" journalism (contrast with John Safran interviewing KKK leaders), the piece was accompanied by a photo of a lynched black man, and the rest of the publication became well-known for its mocking tone of "black speak."

The Review also frequently "outed" gay students against their wishes. His far-right slant on many subjects led others to nickname him "Distort D'Newsa."[6] He then went to work for the Policy Review.

[edit]Politics

D'Souza served as a White House political adviser during the Saint Reagan years. He has been known to support United Nations mediation in war-torn parts of the world. In his book What's So Great About America, he defends the United Statesagainst criticism it has received for its overbearing role in geopolitics, and the conservative method of government, while attacking liberalism.

D'Souza has pushed GOP batshittery like Birtherism, and appears regularly on Fox News. During the Republican nomination in 2012, two contenders — Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee — used points raised in his book The Roots Of Obama's Rage, to portray Obama as alien without having to engage in obvious Birtherism.[7][8] Other Republican leaders have also indirectly used this talking point to attack the character of the President, blissfully unaware of the irony of politicians from a country that owes its very independence to anti-colonialism accusing its president of adhering to anti-colonialism. This also applies to D'Souza himself, since he was born in India, with its own struggle against British colonial rule.

[edit]Homosexuality

As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza outed the officers of the Gay Straight Alliance and published stolen confidential files. He claimed he just wanted to make sure they weren't using university funding for "gay parties, gay orgies, or whatever."[9] Yeah, brah. He has repeatedly gone on homophobic rants online and in public.[10] His attempt to recast the movement for gay rights from a personal and humanitarian one to a political one has not gone down well even with conservatives, who see it as something that is mandated by the will of God, not the will of the people.

[edit]Racism (Or, "I am brown. I used to have many black friends")

“”Dese boys be sayin' that we be comin' here to Dartmut an' not takin' the classics. You know, Homa, Shakesphere; but I hea' dey all be co'd in da ground, six feet unda, and whatchu be askin' us to learn from dem?
—From The Dartmouth Review under D'Souza. Ahem.

D'Souza is completely out of touch with the discrimination that minorities face in the United States. In his controversial 1995 book The End of Racism, he argued that "Racism, which once used to be systematic, had now become episodic," and that "...it no longer controlled the lives of blacks and other minorities." He explains away the prejudice against Blacks and Latinos as being caused by "cultural factors," not racial victimization.[11] The End of Racism, indeed.

In the book, D'Souza, also among other things, argues that the parts of the Civil Rights Act pertaining to private companies should be *repealed*. D'Souza holds a fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a think tank which published the book. This caused two of AEI's black fellows to resign their positions.[12][13]

[edit]Barack Obama

At one point, D'Souza was supportive of Obama, saying that Obama "...makes his claims on the merits, and he appeals to shared American ideals," while contrasting him with people like the evil Jesse Jackson. This was while trying desperately to justify his twisted views on racism, as he used the fact that a black man had been elected president to assert that racism was dead.[11]

D'Souza then hopped on the "Obama is un-American" bandwagon. Obama's hatred towards the country he leads is indicated by his failure to spend the first 17 years of his life there (Hawaii doesn't count). This is in stark contrast to D'Souza's first 17 years, spent in America's heartland of Mumbai, India.

His main claim is that Obama is an anti-colonialist who wants to suck America dry and distribute the spoils among Third World nations.[14] His argument is as follows: Obama's father was an anti-colonialist, and one of Obama's books is titledDreams From My Father, so he must be carrying on his old man's alleged agenda and wishing for the swift demise of America's empire.[15] His evidence for this unorthodox theory consists of a few choice quotes from both Obamas and already-debunked myths, such as an alleged support of Brazilian offshore drilling with US taxpayer money.[16] Why Obama would take his father's understandable opposition to British rule over his country and turn it into an anti-American doctrine remains a mystery.[17] Not to mention that the US itself has had some issues with British colonialism.

In yet another case of a broken record spinning completely out of control, D'Souza insisted on making a movie about this (non-)issue entitled 2016: Obama's America. Predictably, the biggest critical booster of the film is WND.[18] More recently, he claimed that Obama was sympathetic to Muslim *jihadis* and other terrorists because his mother "wanted to marry a Third World anti-American guy," among other things.[19] D'Souza's production of pseudo-psychological crap on this subject is unequaled. Furthermore, the pretzel logic he displays on the subject is starting to resemble a moebius strip; he's apparently convinced that Obama's support for equal rights for gays is somehow tied to his anti-colonialist views because - wait for it - he identifies "traditional Christianity" with colonialism.[20]

[edit]Debating tactics

  1. D'Souza has an aggressive and rhetorical speaking and debating style, which makes him sound forceful and convincing. He uses the Gish Gallop frequently and effectively, rebuffing his opponent for not addressing every point he makes.
  2. He frequently employs caricatures and strawmen of atheist positions. He presents these positions so as to make them sound whimsical or silly, while presenting his own statements with an air of utmost gravity, no matter how lunatic or far-fetched they may be.
  3. Every time Dinesh attempts to speak for, quote, or misquote his opponent, he adopts a buffoonish, mocking tone. It is a very unsubtle ad hominem attack fused into his prose.
  4. He is a big fan of quote mining. Not content with simply taking his opponent's statements out of context, he will take a quote about a topic completely unrelated to the one under discussion and re-frame it to make it sound as if his opponent is uninformed or delusional.
  5. A main weapon in his debating arsenal is the emotional appeal, where he paints his opponent's position as false because some of its implications may be distasteful to certain members of the audience.
  6. He enjoys painting his opponents as vicious critics of innocuous policies and events, and himself as a paragon of intellectual virtue. While not going as far as character assassination (at least not in a face-to-face debate), he does subtly attack the character of his opponent.
  7. He often says that an assertion by his opponent, or even the opponent's entire position, is invalid because it is not intuitively or obviously true. He paints this as a "common sense" argument, where he calls upon the audience to evaluate an assertion using their own intuition. In reality, this is a denial of the obvious fact that many things are counterintuitive and require expertise beyond the experience of the average person (but don't take our word for it; ask your neighbor about quantum mechanics or the economics of sub-Saharan Africa). This is a particularly effective tactic, as it shifts audience opinion to his side.
  8. Thanks to his wide repertoire of tactics, he rarely is forced to allow a point by his opponent to pass unchallenged. This projects the illusion of competence, whereas most of his rebuttals are intellectually dishonest and completely invalid.
  9. When all else fails, he will spout outright lies and half truths, pulling facts and statistics out of thin air to give his argument some credibility. This amounts to an argument from authority, which he seems to derive from his public "reputation" as a political commentator, academic and writer.
  10. Lately, he appears to carry around a sizable library of books to debates, frequently flashing them at his opponent and at the audience, while stating that they completely prove his own, or disprove his opponent's, points. These are usually self-published works by fringe lunatics (which are not worth the paper they're printed on). This is argument from authority on steroids, since no one except him has read the book. Therefore, his opponent cannot call him out on it, and is forced to let the point go without comment.

[edit]More hypocrisy

In true fashion of other vocal religious neoconservatives, it was revealed in October 2012 that D'Souza was having a sexual relationship with a woman other than his wife.[21] A few days after the news hit the media and internet, D'Souza resigned from his position as president of The King's College.[22] In his defense, he claimed that he was divorced (though having previously stated his belief in marriage as an eternal covenant), when in fact he was simply separated from his current wife and divorce proceedings had begun but not yet finalized—which still technically makes him an adulterer, though a comment on one blog suggested that he was also being polygamous by getting engaged to one woman while married to another.[23] Not to worry, though; D'Souza's squeeze on the side apparently thinks that women's suffrage is a really bad thing (and gives a truly goofy shout-out to Rick Santorum on the subject to boot), meaning that he's got a ticket in the wingnutsweepstakes as well.[24]

[edit]Publications

[edit]See also

[edit]External links (if you have the stomach for this kind of bollocks)

-His debate with Daniel Dennett

-His debate with Christopher Hitchens

-His debate with Michael Shermer

[edit]Footnotes

  1. ↑ Ariel Kaminer, "Star Commentator Is Out as Christian College President After Scandal," *New York Times*, October 18, 2012
  2. ↑ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/dinesh-dsouza-campaign-finance-indictment
  3. ↑ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dinesh-dsouza-pleads-guilty-making-705819
  4. ↑ Dinesh D'Souza gets 5 years of probation in federal Manhattan court over campaign donations
  5. ↑ Campus Progress - Dinesh D’Souza
  6. ↑ [1]
  7. ↑ NYT: Gingrich: President Exhibits ‘Kenyan, Anticolonial Behavior’
  8. ↑ Time: Huckabee's a Birther?
  9. ↑ GSA Profile, History Commons
  10. ↑ "Gay rights versus democracy", Town Hall
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 [2], Town Hall
  12. ↑ SPLC on AEI
  13. ↑ For an in-depth debunking of the pseudohistory in the book, see Paul Finkelman. Rise of the New Racism. Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1996
  14. ↑ Forbes: "How Obama Thinks"
  15. ↑ That he's admitting the US is an empire should say something.
  16. ↑ Slate: D'Souza's Brazilian Conspiracy Theory
  17. ↑ Even more hilariously, US and UK relations have arguably strengthened during Obama's four years.
  18. ↑ D’Souza Turns Lie Into Fodder for His Delusions, Dispatches from the Culture Wars
  19. ↑ Dinesh D'Souza Says Obama is 'Weirdly Sympathetic' to Terrorists, Sees them as 'Freedom Fighters', Right Wing Watch
  20. ↑ D’Souza: Gay Rights are Anti-Colonialist. Or Something. Dispatches from the Culture Wars
  21. ↑ [3]
  22. ↑ [4]
  23. ↑ [5]
  24. ↑ D'Souza Mistress Opposes Women's Suffrage, Dispatches from the Culture Wars
  25. ↑ This one got laughed at even by other conservatives. See the National Review Online's symposium on the book.

Categories: 

 - Political pundits

===