Dinesh D'Souza's documentary makes tenous connections between Obama and a myriad of global evils. Courtesy Obama's America Foundation
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Conservatives have been abuzz this year about "2016: Obama's America," a documentary by Dinesh D'Souza, claiming to expose the "real" Barack Obama.
So who is Obama really?
According to D'Souza, he is a communist revolutionary consumed by the anticolonial passions of his Kenyan father. D'Souza presents his film as a stark warning. If voters make the wrong choice in November, the United States as we know it will disappear by 2016, replaced by a third-world dictatorship.
As you may have guessed already, D'Souza's film is one of the kookiest, most dishonest documentaries ever made. There are distortions and outright falsehoods in almost every minute.
The central premise of the film is that Obama is secretly a communist who was shaped by Kenyan resistance to British rule. This is a disturbing claim that demands strong evidence, but the movie does not present any real evidence at all. The entire argument hangs on guilt by association and quotes taken out of context.
Ultimately, D'Souza offers viewers little more than a quote from the end of Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father." Weeping at his father's grave, Obama makes peace with his father and forgives him for his flaws, which he recognizes in himself.
It is a deeply personal passage about family and identity.
For D'Souza, this passage signals that Obama shares every one of his father's beliefs, including an allegedly rabid anticolonialism. He is not discouraged by the fact that Obama met his father only once, when he was 10. It does not matter to him that Obama shared none of his father's experiences and first visited Kenya when he was nearly 30. It's a bit like someone ascribing to you all the beliefs of a crazy aunt you met at only one family reunion. But that's all D'Souza thinks he needs to run off to fantasyland.
Almost no one D'Souza interviews has met Obama, and none of those few knows him well. D'Souza interviews friends of Obama's father in Kenya, but why would Obama share the views of people he doesn't even know? D'Souza applies the radical beliefs of nearly anyone loosely associated with the president. If any of Obama's college professors believes a thing, Obama must believe it, too. If Obama ever read a book, he must agree with it completely. And if a family friend Obama knew as a teenager became a communist in the 1940s, that means Obama must be a communist, too. Guilty by association.
Many parts of the film are laughable. D'Souza sees dark signs in every corner, including even office decor. He makes a great deal of Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill to the British, for this supposedly signals rage at British colonialism--although a nearly identical bust of Churchill remains in the White House. The other bust was only a loan, and the British always expected its return. In its place, the Oval Office now displays a bust of Abraham Lincoln. Obama clearly takes inspiration from Lincoln, who steered the country through troubled times. (Not to mention, Lincoln was actually an American.) If D'Souza is willing to misinform his audience about something so trivial, why would we trust him on anything else?
The movie grows ever more unhinged as D'Souza claims that a second term for Obama will destroy the country. He warns that Obama has deliberately weakened America by reducing our nuclear stockpile to 1,500 warheads in the New START Treaty. Apparently, treaty supporters like Henry Kissinger and James Baker are also anticolonial communists if that is the standard. The film then claims that Obama plans to unilaterally dismantle the rest of our nuclear weapons, without reductions from any other country. D'Souza's only evidence is that Obama hopes the world will one day be free of nuclear weapons. But Ronald Reagan said precisely the same thing. Neither Reagan nor Obama ever said that America should disarm unilaterally.
D'Souza also claims that Obama has deliberately built up deficits to impoverish the U.S., so it will become a third-world country. He never confesses that the deficit stood at $1.2 trillion the day Obama took office. Even if Obama does not win re-election, deficits will fall by at least $200 billion under his administration, or about 25 percent as a percentage of GDP. By contrast, George W. Bush took us from a surplus in 2001 to a deficit of $1.2 trillion in his last year. The film tries to hide these facts by talking about the increase in deficits since 2000, conveniently blaming Obama for deficits that grew under Bush. Do Bush's deficits mean that he was secretly a communist intent on destroying America because of a troubled relationship with his father?
It would be easy to go on about all the things this movie gets wrong, all the truth it buries, all the hilarious claims it makes. But you get the point. The truth is that there is no "real" Obama, no secret communist freedom fighter hiding within the completely ordinary Democrat on the surface. Conservatives are entirely free to dislike Obama and vote for Romney. But they should stick to the facts and criticize the policies Obama has actually enacted or proposed.
Those who follow D'Souza off into the woods of paranoia and delusion do a disservice both to the country and to themselves. They harm the country by debasing our political discourse, which has been filled for years now with wild-eyed madness about birth certificates and FEMA camps. Frankly, they should be embarrassed by such kooky hogwash. But the conservative movement has become an echo chamber, where lies are held up as truth the liberal media tries to hide.
Fortunately, most Americans are repulsed by extremist conspiracy theories, and they will never embrace an opposition that looks deranged.
If Republicans hope to win national elections, they need to clean house, because folks like D'Souza do not deserve a place at the table. They belong out in the back yard, howling at the moon.
Comments
gwilly 11 years, 6 months ago
What amazes me about the stance of the film and the filmmaker is the premise that being anti-colonial is something to be feared. It seems so ironic, considering India was colonized and throwing off the British rule was a long and arduous task, that an Indian-American would make this film and this argument. It is also ironic that Americans would eat up the anti-colonial rhetoric as equal to anti-American, as if our founding principles were those of powerful country with the destiny to rule the world rather than those of a idealistic and struggling young nation yearning to free itself from a colonizing power. Meanwhile, the Republican party is becoming increasing intolerant, closed and paranoid to the point that they see a conspiracy behind anyone who disagrees with them. They no longer resemble the paragons of freedom and self-determination they believe themselves to be, and seem more like the conspirators they fear.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
That gets me, too, gwilly. Also amazing to me is that they tar the president based on a father he met once, who did him and his mother wrong, but would freak out if you tried to say something similar about Mitt Romney. I mean, his grandfather went to Mexico so he could engage in polygamy -- does that mean that Romney reflects his grandfather's values? Of course not.
Or an example closer to home: What about all the white people in Mississippi whose daddies and granddaddies were members of the White Citizens Council, Americans for the Preservation of the White Race or the Ku Klux Klan? Are we to assume that their children are carrying on their values if there is no evidence to support it? That is, we're supposed to go look up the last name of everyone in the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission archives in order to judge them based on the character of their fathers and grandfathers?
We work with a printer here that was started by some of the most ardent racists in the state's history. Do we assume that their children hold the same values? No. In fact, we LOVE that people are capable of rejecting the values they were raised with -- and President Obama wasn't raised anywhere near his father.
D'Souza is a neo-con and, thus, has an agenda in opposing Obama. And it is based on no small part on the neo-cons' desire to see us spend to the hilt on military to force American values on the world. Let's just be honest about what's going on here.
scrappy1 11 years, 6 months ago
You're right you don't really need to know more about our current President than the results of his actions campaigning and serving as president. If you can't see that his agenda has damaged even his supporters, except for the rich that he has given trillions, then no movie will change your mind. $6 trillion more in debt, millions more on food stamps and welfare, suing states that want to enforce immigration laws while supporting states that violate federal immigration laws. A President swears to uphold the constitution of the USA, but apparently his supporters don't think that applies to him. He swore to stand with Muslims and that he has as he has used our tax/ debt dollars to support turning over many parts of the Middle East to Sharia compliant governments. Even announcing with his UN speech that our first amendment should be restricted when referring to Islam's Prophet. As for extremist Muslims, all have the same agenda, the advancement of Sharia law. "The leadership of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City have launched an online petition campaign for President Obama to back a bill to limit the free speech of American citizens they deem offensive." So if the USA constitution and the freedoms it assures is important to you then a second term for President Obama is not for you. If you have doubts then did through the speeches and information about President Obama that the main stream won't print. Things like the number of military deaths in Afghanistan. Bush was hounded about every death as probably should be as nearly seven hundred died while President Bush was Commander in Chief for eight years.. But under President Obama over 1400 have been killed, in under four years, without much of a peep from the MSM . http://icasualties.org/oef/">http://icasualties.org/oef/ Bottom line is a person shouldn't be paranoid about a movie but the actions of President Obama.
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
Scrappy, there is no need to make up lies to oppose the president. He did not "swear to stand with Muslims." He did not say that the "First Amendment should be restricted when referring to Islam's prophet." If you want to blame him for deaths in Afghanistan, or oppose him for immigration policy, that is one thing. But you're already traipsing through D'Souza territory with this other hogwash.
scrappy1 11 years, 6 months ago
The actual quote from the Audacity of Hope is from page 261 and is as follows: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
This isn't out of context, Barrack Obama was saying because of the World Trade Center bombing he would stand with Muslims if politics proved difficult for them. He wasn't referring to Arab and Pakistani Christians they didn't commit the atrocities of 9/11. After the Egyptians and Libyans burned our embassies and murdered our Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans he continues to defend Islam before the UN assembly with this quote, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” So according to President Obama if you condemn the prophet of Islam you have no future, maybe that's not just the first amendment you don't get to use but you don't get a future???? So I could be wrong about restricting free speech, President Obama could be implying even more serious consequences.
Maybe the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City is being more benevolent toward us infidels because they specify "free speech". "The leadership of the Islamic Society of Greater Kansas City have launched an online petition campaign for President Obama to back a bill to limit the free speech of American citizens they deem offensive."
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
D'Souza's movie reminded me of two other recent whackadoodle documentaries, one on the right and the other on the left (sort of). The one on the right is Ben Stein's "Expelled," which claims to expose a conspiracy among scientists to hide the gaping holes in Darwinian evolution. It goes without saying that Stein gets all his facts wrong, because there is no controversy among biologists about the truth of evolution. What struck me as similar is the way that Stein pretended to be a neutral, open-minded seeker after truth. He puts on this "aw shucks" act to give the impression that he is presenting an unbiased assessment of the facts. Of course, he almost immediately starts saying things that show he is horribly biased. D'Souza does much the same thing. He pretends to feel this great simpatico with Obama and to be an honest seeker of truth. But it quickly becomes evident that he believes all sorts of baseless, downright crazy things about the president. And he is a shameless liar about the president's policies.
The other movie it reminded me of is "Loose Change," the 9/11 conspiracy film. Like "2016," the 9/11 movie is an amalgam of wildly implausible conspiracy theories and patently false claims. I don't know that it fits anywhere on the political spectrum, but it does claim that Bush deliberately staged 9/11 to bring about a right-wing autocracy. People on the left completely disowned the movie. But if a similar movie were made about Obama, all available evidence suggests that conservatives would celebrate it simply because it attacks the president. Conservatives have become incredibly gullible. Every day, I see claims on Facebook that even an Obama hater should suspect are false. They usually take less than a minute to check and refute. But people pass them on and on and trumpet them as the shocking truth that will finally open people's eyes to Obama's growing tyranny. Sometimes, members of Congress even repeat them. Obviously, this sort of crazy talk does not help conservatives win over independents. But apart from political concerns, it appears that the right has lost its intellectual self-respect. They are so filled with hatred for Obama that they regularly humiliate themselves with idiotic claims and easily exposed lies.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
I'm truly embarrassed for anyone who declares out loud that Obama is a Muslim. They have no idea how ignorant they sound.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
You have GOT to be kidding, scrappy. THAT'S the quote y'all are wigging out about!? He's talking about American citizens of Arab descent. Every word he speaks there is the truth and admirable. That has nothing to do with D'Souza's false premise.
Some of you folks are just blinded by bigotry. Come on. The president's job is to stand with all American citizens, of every descent and religious preference, against profiling and hatred. Not just the people who approve of. Your way would make us a very different kind of country -- like those you love to hate so much. You have just proved how absurd D'Souza's film is; thank you.
RexRuffer 11 years, 6 months ago
Point of order regarding your statement "the deficit stood at $1.2 trillion the day Obama took office." , a common thing Democrats like to blame on G.W. Bush. The President does not set the congressional budget, congress does. And who was in charge of congress the last two years of Bush's reign as President? Democrats. And who was part of that congress? Obama. What did he vote for? Increased deficits. One of the most harmful pieces of legislation passed during that time, which Obama also was and is for, Dodd-Frank, which caused untold damage to our country!
2016 plays on the histrionics that U.S.ian's hold so dear, for entertainment, but even if its all just a bunch of made up BS, is it not wise to question his positions and background? Have his supporters become mere cult worshipers who question nothing and don't care about his ideologies, where he truly stands on things? Do people not understand that actions speak louder than words? I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Regardless of Your political affiliation, facts are facts, so lets keep it real. Obama has been the worst President in American history for numerous reasons, most disconcerting to me, his belief that its OK to set aside parts of the Constitution whenever it suits him, or as he puts it "in the best interest of the people" and "for our common security". And all the sheeple just acquiesce, because 'security' is what they want/need ... "He that would give up his liberty for a little security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin If I knew nothing else about Romney, he's a Mormon. And while I am not , I've never met a Mormon that didn't have strong moral and ethical character. I'm not gonna worship the guy, but he doesn't come across as a liar and a cheat, to the contrary. He does come across as an Excellent businessman, husband, and father.
Look at last years tax returns for both candidates. Obama's income mostly wages, a bit from book royalties, but a negative on capital gains. Donations to charity in proportion to income? Minimal at best. Romney's return shows he had 0 from wages, but his capital gains were more than 12 times Obama's total income. And how much did he give to charity? $4 mil or more than 4 times Obama's salary, but he only claimed $2.4 million, which he did to even out his tax liability. A pure logical analysis of this, Romney is a smarter businessman, period. And for those who pounce on Romney's insensitive gaffe about "47%", perspective people. He was saying, in a rather poor manner, that rather than focusing on the 47% of Americans who will vote for Obama no matter what he says or does, he'd rather focus on rallying the 53%. That's all he was saying. Please, if your going to vote this November, don't do it blindly following a perceived platform. or any other uninformed unilateral methodology (like race, or religion for that matter). Do some homework, get the facts, use common sense, and then vote your conscience.
tstauffer 11 years, 6 months ago
Here's what he actually said.
Mitt Romney, in a closed-door, high-dollar fundraiser: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Note for the record that if "all he said" was that he wasn't going to focus on certain voters, then why did he repudiated the comment weeks later? And why did he bring it up again (to his detriment) in the last debate?
Because it's not all he said. What he said is ridiculous, offensive, childish, stupid and wrong.
So be honest. How does ANYONE think that and then say out loud and something like the quote above and still present himself as a man of great integrity who is in this race for anything but his own ego gratification?
It took me a long time to fully understand the line in The American President the way I do after Mitt Romney: "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?"
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
Scrappy, that is some amazing misreading you're doing there. For the record, you pulled the business about the First Amendment right out of thin air. You have produced no quote that comes even remotely close to backing up your claim, which was that Obama has said the "first amendment should be restricted." Your dire insinuation that the president intends to close off a future for those who slander the prophet of Islam is incredibly dishonest. Any reasonable person can see that the president is condemning religious bigotry, which is what a president ought to do. Should I provide similar quotes from George W. Bush? Because they're not hard to find.
Your distortion of the quote from The Audacity of Hope only demonstrates the importance of the president's point. A growing number of conservatives have become militantly xenophobic and even genocidal in their attitudes toward Muslims. It is the duty of the president to stand up for the civil rights of all citizens, including Muslims. You all kept quiet when Bush was in office, but now you're out in the open with this junk.
You clearly went to the D'Souza School of Interpretive Dance. Aren't you embarrassed to present an argument that's so weak?
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
Rex! No one is saying not to question any candidate's background. What is crazy is making up wacked-out conspiracy theories about Obama trying to push his father's agenda or trying to turn Obama—the only mainline Protestant out of the top four candidates on both tickets--into a Muslim. (Not to mention, folks who use "Muslim" as a slur, but that's another whole topic).
As for Romney being a "smarter businessman," I don't think anybody questions that he has become very wealthy. But being a smart businessman ain't all that this is about -- especially if he is a conniving business man who buys companies, then lays off the workers, sells them and moves the companies overseas. (Not to mention hides his own money in offshore accounts.) There are many ways to define "smart," and they're not all impressive. People say Charles Manson was "smart."
Now, on the topic lying, you're the weakest when you say Romney "doesn't come across as a liar and a cheat." Rex, last night, Romney looked sick Americans in the face and lied when he said his play would cover pre-existing conditions. His adviser walked it back right after the debate.
He also lied when he said Obama is responsible for more debt than many presidents combined -- debt on Obama's watch, so far, is 60 percent of what occurred on Bush's. That's a lie, and Romney knows it.
He lied about the "death panels" (Palin's phrase); they aren't designed to do what he said, but he is trying to scare elderly people like Palin did.
He lied about Obama's Medicare "cut" of "$716 billion for current recipients of Medicare." (10 times if you search the transcript).
He lied about how the percentage of recent college graduates are out of work.
He lied about how many green energy companies have gone out of business. He said half while the vast majority are succeeding. (Bloomberg says about 3 percent are failing; a smart businessman would know that's a pretty good percentage.)
He said oil and gas drilling is all happening on private land: false. Actually, drilling on government land has risen under the Obama administration over Bush's.
He said he won't cut education, but weeks ago, he said he would. (maybe tht's just another flipflop, but it's dishonest)
I could go on, but suffice it to say that these aren't interpretive distortions; these are demonstrable, bald-faced lies.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
Then, there's the, uh, interpretive problem of his numbers not adding up at all and his refusal to give real details of his "plan." Romney said in no uncertain terms that he will not raise $1 in taxes on the wealthy in order to lower the debt. At the same time, he says the debt will be devastating if it doesn't stop rising (which everyone, including Obama, agrees is a bad thing). But he won't consider raising taxes (or restoring them to Clinton levels) to deal with it? (Right, Reagan promised that, too, because raising taxes repeatedly.) So that means he doesn't really care about lowering debt, no?
How smart of a businessman says we can grow our economy with revenue shortfalls and only by cutting? It doesn't add up, and it's not logical.
We're left with basic holes in his math that defy common sense (as the president said last night). His numbers don't add up, and he just denies it over and over again, and hopes enough people believe him so that he can get in there and dump medical needs, education and so much else on the states, who are already hurting. That's called abdicating responsibility, and that is not something that smart businesspeople do.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
Oh, and Romney also repeated the lie about the deficit that the right wing likes to push: He said last night that Obama doubled it.
No, not even close. He inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit from Bush in January 2009, and it is now at about $1.3 trillion. It's hovered around the same level throughout his nearly four years.
Why tell such an easily verifiable lie? Sure, argue, twist, spin and try to convince on how you will lower it -- but what kind of person outright lies about a factual number like that? Or the debt?
I don't get this. It shows just remarkable contempt for the American public to lie in such an absurd way.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
Last night, Romney said he is not going to cut taxes on the wealthy. During his primary campaign he said he is going lower taxes on all Americans (including the wealthy) by 20 percent -- which raises the question of how his match adds up.
Here is a video with both clips:
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
Rex, anyone can beat up a straw man. The review itself states that Republicans should "criticize the policies Obama has actually enacted or proposed." That's entirely fair and even vital for democracy. So you're only arguing with yourself on that score. What should be out of bounds are wild conspiracy theories that portray Obama as a dangerous sleeper agent.
You're already veering off into dangerous territory with your claim that Obama believes it is "OK to set aside parts of the Constitution whenever it suits him, or as he puts it 'in the best interest of the people' and 'for our common security.'" What in the blazes are you talking about? Obama has never claimed he has the authority to set aside parts of the Constitution. You don't provide a source or any context for the quotes you offer as support. Offer evidence for this claim or retract it.
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
As for policy, Rex, Donna has engaged you in a healthy political debate, partly by pointing out that Romney's policy proposals are mathematically impossible. It would help your case if you were consistent and got your facts straight. For instance, you seem to suggest that Dodd-Frank was passed while Obama was a Senator, but that's incorrect.
As for deficits and debts, you want to exonerate Bush for deficits because the president doesn't set the budget, but you want to blame Obama for deficits while he has been president. (Also, don't say that it's a "point of order," because it isn't. You're mangling parliamentary procedure.) Part of the problem with this argument is that much of the deficit, even now, is caused by policies enacted by Bush and the Republicans. The most important of these are massive tax cuts. But just for fun, let's indulge your argument and let Bush off the hook entirely for the last two years of his administration, when Democrats controlled Congress. Before that, Republicans controlled the government entirely. During that time, Bush and the Republicans took us from a surplus to massive deficits every single year they controlled the government. They added more than $1.5 trillion in debt from 2002 to 2006, and that was at a time when the country wasn't in recession.
As for the rest of your post, it's great that Romney gives a lot of money to his church, but that's not a good reason to elect him president. Similarly, I'll concede that Romney knows how to manage wealth, though that's not exactly what most people mean when they say "businessman." But that does not qualify him to be president of the United States.
goldeneagle97 11 years, 6 months ago
I'd like for our Obama opponents to tell me what parts of the Constitution the president has discarded, or what he has done that is socialist?
"Please, if your going to vote this November, don't do it blindly following a perceived platform. or any other uninformed unilateral methodology (like race, or religion for that matter)."
Rex, I agree you in theory on this, but many outspoken white conservatives have been playing the race and religion cards to make the case that Obama is being supported because of his race. Also, they keep bringing up the false notion that he is a Muslim, though is a Christian (and the only Protestant, as Donna pointed out, among the prez & VP candidates). But even if he is a Muslim, so what? The Constitution you so admirably love explicitly guarantees us freedom of religion. There's also no requirement to be of a certain religion to hold office.
aeroscout 11 years, 6 months ago
Goldeneagle, my problem w/ the President and the Constitution is the continued Bush 43 expansion of the police power, continued Bush 43 wars, and the extension of the 2001 'national emergency'. The constitutional powers of the president has grown under President Obama as Commander-in-Chief. The Libyan adventure was necessary in a humane way, but a continuation of executive war power none the less. The American Empire is not a constitutional power and is not a democracy or a republic. I suggest the report released by the US Senate Committee on Investigations that criticized Homeland Security secrecy, personal privacy violations, and waste. Its on Senator Coburn's website, but the ACLU blogged on this matter with graphs to clearly show the increasing police power under President Obama.
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
I think that's a valid criticism, aeroscout, and it's one that comes from both the left and the right. That is, I've seen libertarians make this criticism, but my mother makes the same argument from a Green Party perspective. It is fair so long as it is not laid entirely at Obama's doorstep, as our runaway executive is a bipartisan affair. I do not support Obama's expansion of the war in Afghanistan, his expansion of drone strikes, or his embrace of the Patriot Act. I also think he should have vetoed the NDAA, though it is virtually certain to be struck down by the courts.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the election, we are left with the lesser of two evils on foreign policy, because every indication is that Romney would be worse than Obama. Romney has surrounded himself with neo-cons such as Liz Cheney, John Bolton, and Dan Senor. He seems eager to go to war with Iran. He is essentially a Likudnik with regard to Israel. He flirts with brinksmanship with China. He wants to antagonize Russia. And the NDAA was the love child of Republican war mongers Lindsey Graham and John McCain. It may be damning with faint praise, but if our choice is between a conservative hawk like Obama and a neo-con adventurer like Romney, we are better off with Obama.
donnaladd 11 years, 6 months ago
So, D'Souza has a http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news...">sex scandal now threatening his credibility with the very people he's trying to convince. Smh.
brjohn9 11 years, 6 months ago
Ha! I just popped over to post the same thing. D'Souza has http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politi...">resigned as the president of King's College, an evangelical school in Manhattan. His resignation follows a story in the World, an evangelical magazine, that alleged D'Souza was committing adultery at an evangelical conference in September. Apparently, spreading lies about the president is perfectly fine, but lying about your sex life crosses the line.
D'Souza attempted to defend his behavior over on http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/1...">Fox News. (Where else?) Among other humorous statements, D'Souza claims he had "no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced." Yes, who would have thought?
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID