Book of the Month

jollyroger's picture

Dinesh Dsouza, fake intellectual, looking at hard time. Well, thank you, Jesus!.

It's practically impossiible to actually draw an indictment under our post Citizens United jurisprudence, but this hypocritical stalwart of National Review managed it.  Take me now, Jesus, I can die happy....

Read the full article at

I'll be with Moses, but okay...


And...with all the talk of "voter fraud."

Just beggers the imagination...

I'll tell you what beggars the imagination....that there are TWO, count'em two, women who purport to be fucking this hunka hunka burnin love without compensation!W6vfbiifpesxbkkepgdt



Separated at birth?



Come on Jolly, that comparison isn't really fair. Mad magazine is actually funny and the satire sometimes makes a cogent point.

Point well taken and apologies to Alfred E.

but okay.


He's my cousin on his mother's side...(Yours too, unless I misconstrue...)

Well, I did once date a Schwartz who was a Lutheran, and not a convert.

Some Swartz(es) get very edgy when they're mistaken for Schwartz(es) and make a point of pronouncing their names without the beginning "sh" sound.

These anti-Semitic German types forget that "S" in German is a "sh" sound unless you come from Hamburg (I think), where it is an "s" sound.

Maybe Dinesh should spell his name Dines. But then he'd be mistaken for a verb.


best description I ever saw of him.

He apparently had so little sense of proportion that he publicly lamented the failure of the Academy to recognize his filmaking chops with an oscar!

That said, I don't see a slam-dunk case for the prosecutor here, at least not from what TPM has written on it. Timing is a consideration, which TPM does not make real clear, because there's the divorce involved with a possible separation beforehand, a confusion of marital and IRS status. Then there's the one refund from the campaign mentioned.  What was that about? That story yet to be told. As to the alleged reimbursement (s), all depends upon what the paper record says. If you tell the a paramour that you would sure appreciate it if she and her current hubby donate $5,000 to the campaign of your old friend, and then a month later you give her a $5,000 diamond ring that she later returns for a refund, how are you going to prove that the two things are connected? Maybe if you can get the bitter angry ex-wife who wants revenge to get on the stand to allege that's what happened? Get what I am saying?

And certainly not a slam dunk case as far as public reputation is concerned (with that part of the public with which he still has a reputation cheeky.) The technique alleged vaguely in the TPM piece is very like the practice of "bundling" that has been used by all political stripes to get around the law, yet i's not like a scheme to get masses of money to a candidate like bundling often is, just $20K. The monetary amounts involved really do just make it seem like what the defense attorney is obviously trying to argue, that this was just trying to help an old friend run for office and making a couple of errors doing so. No big egregious plot here--he didn't follow the spirit of the law to help an old friend--I just don't see major new outrage flaring up over it. Certainly not from other pols and politicos of all stripes who have probably had a lot of the very same going on. I get the impression with the stories of donation refunds I run across in passing that they are so busy courting the big money, they don't rigrorously self-police all the individual donations with a fine tooth comb, they just refund when someone happens to point something out.

a slam-dunk case for the prosecutor here



What you have described would, indeed, be a closer call...unencumbered by reading the actual indictment (TLDR...) I surmise that he is such a mental midget that he didn't even avail himself of the methods of obfuscation you describe, but took the five large outta his left pocket, as it were, and handed it over to the straw donors, even as he completed the fraudulent documentation with the right hand...hence the  "fake" part of his intellect.  Or perhaps merely availed himself of the straw donors name, with no track covering whatsoever.

What a putz!

I just hit this on the internet.

I have written about this idiot.

Take me now Jesus...


He is a first class horse's ass,, (with apologies to any useful horses within earshot...)

 I read his book What's So Great About America. After that, I could not bring myself to read What's So Great About Christianity.

What, you missed the movie?


D'Souza discusses Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr., and what D'Souza describes as Obama Sr.'s anti-colonialist views of the British Empire. This, according to D'Souza, explains why Obama supposedly rejects American exceptionalism and why D'Souza believes he is attempting to "reshape America." D'Souza delves into what he terms the "founding fathers" from Obama's past, including Frank Marshall Davis, Reverend Jeremiah WrightBill AyersEdward Said, and Roberto Unger.



To paraphrase a usage from a different venue, D'Souza (as a thinker)  is not fit to wipe Edward Said's ass...

As you may recall, Newt took up this theme for a while, but seems to have been smart enough to have dropped it.

That said, I met a number of seemingly smart conservatives who urged me to see the movie and accused me of not being open-minded when I said I'd take a pass.

It was in the same category as that other racist movie making the conservative rounds-- maybe produced by Newt--called something like The Obsession. That's not it, but it's something like it.

It's amazing these people walk upright.

Upright, maybe, but their arms are long enough to put their knuckles at risk of hitting the ground...

I would be remiss to leave this topic without pausing for a moment to wonder how the fuck "American exceptionalism" went from a shorthand perjorative for insisting upon a double standard so as to justify the nightmares we created in Vietnam to a cause for the thumping of chests and the bellowing of initials (U----S----A!...U.---S....etc.)

Latest Comments