Obama smear author D’Souza indicted

I only touched briefly on Dinesh D’Souza in an article mainly about Joel Gilbert. D’Souza wrote two anti-Obama books, the The Roots of Obama’s Rage and a 2012 follow-up, 2016: Obama’s America. The latter is also the title of a film that earned $33 million in 2012. The books claim Obama has some anti-colonial rage inherited from Kenyan roots that drives him to do everything possible to destroy the country. From the book description at Amazon.com:

Obama came into office with an eight-year plan for America, argues D’Souza. In almost four years, he’s crippled our economy, healthcare system, and global stature through invasive big-government policies. If he’s re-elected in 2012, he will be able to finish the job, and destroy America’s future.

A federal grand jury in New York indicted D’Souza last week charging that he used straw donors to funnel money to a US Senate candidate Wendy Long in violation of campaign finance laws.

  • Count 1 charges a violation of Title 2 USC Sections 441f and 437g(d)(1)(D) and Title 18 USC Section 2 by reimbursing others to make political contributions in the amount of $20,000. If I read the statute correctly, the maximum penalty for this count is 2 years imprisonment and a fine of 3 times the amount of the contribution (in this case $60,000).
  • Count 2 charges a violation of 18 USC Sections 1001(a) and 2 by causing the submission of false representations to the FEC by a campaign committee. Violation of this section carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

D’Souza was released on $500,000 bond and asked to surrender his passport and agree to travel restrictions.

Under the “too good to be true” category, D’Souza is scheduled to debate none other than Bill Ayers this week on the topic “What’s So Great About America?” at Dartmouth College. The debate is at 7: 30 PM EST and will stream live.

For information and a trailer from D’Souza’s film, America, scheduled for release this July 4, visit the Hollywood Reporter.

This is the first shoe to drop.

Update (5/20/2014)

D’Souza pled guilty today.

Update 2

D’Souza has been pardoned by President Trump.

About Dr. Conspiracy

I'm not a real doctor, but I have a master's degree.
This entry was posted in Birthers Behaving Badly, Books, Crimes and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Obama smear author D’Souza indicted

  1. ZixiOfIx says:

    Love love love D’Souza’s lawyer’s quote:

    “Mr. D’Souza did not act with any corrupt or criminal intent whatsoever,” his lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said in a statement. “He and the candidate have been friends since their college days, and at most, this was an act of misguided friendship by D’Souza.”


    Awesome. Yeah, my client is guilty, but he can explain.

  2. Punchmaster via mobile says:

    Sadly, the little turd has somehow made bail.

  3. Joey says:

    Of course conservatives are blaming President Obama for personally going after D’Souza to get revenge for “2016: Obama’s America.”
    They seem to be unaware that it is Grand Juries who indict and judges who set bail, not Presidents.
    Glenn Beck is comparing D’Souza’s $500,000 bail bond to violent criminals with lesser bail amounts.

  4. justlw says:

    Obama’s revenge for 2016: Obama’s America is getting re-elected, handily, in 2012.

  5. John Reilly says:

    My family is anti-British colonialism, much like other Irish-Americans.

  6. Keith says:

    According to his Wikipedia Bio:

    In the second chapter of What’s So Great About America, D’Souza defends colonialism, arguing that the problem with Africa is not that it was colonized, but rather that it was not colonized long enough. He supports the European colonization of India and other countries, claiming that Christian colonization was a good thing for India because it was a way for Indians to escape the caste system, superstitions and poverty.

  7. Keith says:

    On the other hand, the Wikipedia article on the “Christianisation of Goa” insists:

    However, the converted Hindus retained their mother tongue (which in most cases was Konkani) and caste status, even after becoming Christian. Based on their previous caste affiliations, the new converts were usually lumped into new Catholic castes. The converts from the priestly Brahmin class were Bamonns (Konkani: Brahmins). All Brahmin subcastes such as the Goud Saraswat Brahmins, Padyes, the Daivadnyas, and especially the goldsmiths and a few merchants, were lumped into the Christian caste of Bamonn. The converts from the Kshatriya and Vaishya Vani castes became Chardos (Kshatriyas); and those Vaishya Vanis who couldn’t become Chardos formed a new caste Gauddos. Those converts from the Gaudas, Kunbis and other lower castes were grouped together as Sudirs, equivalent to Shudras. The Bamonns, Chardos, and Gauddos have been traditionally seen as the high castes in the Goan Catholic caste hierarchy.


    Bound by their rigid caste rules, these local converts (particularly the Brahmins) retained pride of caste and race, and very seldom inter-married with the Portuguese. The Portuguese initially attempted to abolish caste distinctions among the local converts and homogenise them into a single entity, but soon found this to be an impossible task and were consequently forced to recognise them. Caste consciousness among the native Christians was so intense that they even maintained separate Church confraternities dedicated to the perpetuation of the existing caste hierarchy. In church circles, the Bamonns and Chardos were rivals and frequently discriminated against each other. Caste discrimination even extended to the clergy. For instance, while there is evidence of Chardo priests since the late 17th century, only Bamonns, Mestiços and foreigners were allowed to join the priesthood till then, and even from that period onwards, members of the clergy continued to hail overwhelmingly from the Bamonn caste. However, some non-Bamonn priests did achieve distinction. For instance, it was Fr. Estevão Jeremais Mascarenhas, a Gauddo by caste and member of parliament elected several times by public demand; who spoke of self-determination in 1853. The Portuguese church authorities decided to recruit Gauddos and Sudirs into the priesthood, in order to offset the increasing hostilities of the Bamonn and Chardo clerics. At least three Sudir priests trained by the Jesuits are known to have been condemned by the Inquisition in 1736. The church authorities initially used the Bamonns and following the example of St. Francis Xavier, Chardos as Konkani and Marathi interpreters in their parishes and missions.

    and finally…

    Historian A.B. Bragança Pereira attributes the continued maintenance of the caste system to the mass conversion of entire villages, which led to the religious complexion of the whole village being Christianised without affecting the existing caste structure. He posits that had the conversions taken place in individual instances, the converts would have formed into a homogenous community and the caste system would have disappeared among the Christians due to their inability to find marriage partners from the same caste.

    According to historian José Gerson da Cunha:

    “The spread of Christianity in the Southern Konkan was not a caste levelling process. It simply conciliated old prejudices with new privileges. A converted Brahman became a Christian in faith alone, retaining all the social rights of Hinduism, and transmitting all caste prerogatives, untainted by any admixture of foreign or low caste blood, through generations to his current aristocratic posterity.”

    D’Souza isn’t even close to being right about his OWN ancestral background; how can he have anything of interest to say about President Obama’s?

  8. Keith says:

    Perhaps D’Souza’s family was materially disadvantaged when the Indians kicked the Portuguese out of Goa in December 1961?

    He was born in Mumbai (Bombay) in April 1961. D’Souza is a decidedly Portuguese sounding name indicating they were Goan. When Goans were Christianized they were forced to take European names. For example (according to Wikipedia: Christianisation of Goa) “Tados Irmaose of Anjuna became João de Souza in 1658.”

    So why were his parents in Mumbai in 1961, I wonder? (and does he have a birth certificate to prove it? Can we trust the Mumbai registry?).

    Were they refugees from Portuguese persecution or perhaps activists running clandestine resistance organizations? If so how does he justify his pro-colonial stance given that background?

    Or were they actually European Goans from the elite class? Perhaps they were Goan merchants trading through Mumbai and lost everything when the Indians took over? Perhaps they were upset at losing Portuguese citizenship? Goa was considered part of Portugal exactly like Lisbon since the 1600’s and Goans were Portuguese citizens (I think this applied to Catholics only, whether Indian or European – I could be wrong).

    Personally I highly doubt that, but we only have to look at the Cubans in America to understand how regime changes can throw entitled elites into disarray and multi-generational vendettas.

    Or perhaps am I off the mark altogether ‘assuming’ his background is from Goa or one of the smaller Portuguese Colonies? Maybe I am reading too much into his name.

  9. Sounds a lot like “Mombasa” to me. There might be a connection.

    Keith: Mumbai

  10. American Mzungu says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sounds a lot like “Mombasa” to me. There might be a connection

    There are connections between these dots. 🙂 http://www.josephclan.com/tjblog/?p=1320

  11. A lot has been added to this article.

  12. bill harper says:

    For a Washington outsider Obama has learned hardball, vindictive politics pretty well!

  13. JD Sue says:

    “For information and a trailer from D’Souza’s film, America, scheduled for release this July 4,”

    Great, maybe the birthers can declare July 4th as “We love British Colonialism Day”.

  14. Andrew Vrba, PmG says:

    JD Sue:
    “For information and a trailer from D’Souza’s film, America, scheduled for release this July 4,”

    Great, maybe the birthers can declare July 4th as “We love British Colonialism Day”.

    They’ll be too busy maiming themselves with fireworks.

  15. Thinker says:

    D’Souza is a classic example of the teabagger overreach that caused the GOP to lose so badly in 2012. While RWNJs were masturbating to his movie, Obama for America volunteers were out knocking on doors and organizing get-out-the-vote activities.

  16. Arthur says:

    Joey: Of course conservatives are blaming President Obama for personally going after D’Souza to get revenge for “2016: Obama’s America.”

    It’s odd that right-wingers didn’t raise objections two years ago when D’sousa was forced to leave his job as president of King’s College in Manhattan. Perhaps they weren’t keen to expose the fact that he resigned as leader of a Christian college after trustees learned he was committing adultery.


  17. sfjeff says:

    Think on this quote from Dinesh when the scandal hit:

    “Ultimately this is not just about Olasky or even World magazine. It is also about how we Christians are supposed to behave with one another. And the secular world is watching. Is this how we love and treat fellow believers? If my conduct was improper, wouldnt it be the decent and charitable thing to approach me about it? Instead, here is a clear attempt to destroy my career and my ministry. This is viciousness masquerading as righteousness. And this is the behavior that is truly worthy of Christian condemnation.”

    Anyone else see the irony in Dinesh’s protestation after how he treated his fellow Christian- and non-adulterer- Barack Obama?

  18. Arthur says:

    sfjeff: Anyone else see the irony in Dinesh’s protestation after how he treated his fellow Christian- and non-adulterer- Barack Obama?

    I’m not saying D’Souza is a hypocrite . . . I prefer to let his words and actions speak for themselves.

  19. I’ve been reading Halperin and Heilemann’s book Double Down: Game Change 2012, which is very much filled with insider information about the 2012 campaign, following all of the candidates including Obama. One is struck in that narrative that Obama, in contrast to some of his Republican rivals, comes across as not vindictive at all.

    I think perhaps you are projecting your own prejudices onto Obama, rather than rationally observing his character. It appears that authors like D’Souza present a highly-distorted character of Obama, and of course there are any number of people happy to believe it.

    bill harper: For a Washington outsider Obama has learned hardball, vindictive politics pretty well!

  20. aarrgghh says:

    Dr. Conspiracy: One is struck in that narrative that Obama, in contrast to some of his Republican rivals, comes across as not vindictive at all.

    i too suspect a little wingnut projection might be at play here …

    an earnest academic who had been attracted by the rhetoric of “compassionate conservativism”, diiulio soon encountered evidence that other, less high minded, forces were at play when he heard karl rove shouting at some poor anonymous soul: “we will fuck him. do you hear me? we will fuck him. we will ruin him. like no one has ever fucked him.”

    craig unger, “boss rove: inside karl rove’s secret kingdom of power”

  21. donna says:

    D’Souza Suggests Fraud Charge Is Payback For Anti-Obama Film (on Fox)

    Hannity stated outright at the beginning of the segment that the Obama administration had targeted conservatives and that D’Souza “was the latest victim to be targeted by the Obama White House.” He then asked D’Souza if he believed his indictment was linked to his criticism of the president.

    D’Souza immediately noted that his film, which links the supposedly anti-colonialist views of Obama’s father to the policies of the Obama presidency, “does seem to have gotten under President Obama’s skin.”

    “I went into Obama’s world and into Obama’s mind,” D’Souza said. “We advanced a thesis that here is a traumatized and messed-up guy who is haunted by the dreams of his father.”

    “Whether this is a kind of payback remains to be seen.”


  22. JPotter says:

    bill harper: hardball, vindictive politics

    Back in ’07-’08, it was “Chicago” politics, and the wingnuts were falling over themselves to express concern that Obama and his righthand thug Rahm would infect poor, innocent, defenseless D.C with this dread disease.

    Since when is a US Senator a “Washington outsider”? LOL!

    So did he bring the thuggery from Chicago back in ’05, or learn the thuggery after the ’08 election, after somehow staying thug-free while in the Senate?

  23. JPotter says:

    donna: D’Souza … noted that his film, … “does seem to have gotten under President Obama’s skin … I went into Obama’s world and into Obama’s mind … here is a traumatized and messed-up guy who is haunted by the dreams of his father.”

    In other news, public self-flattery found to be obscene by thinking adults everywhere, and “author” D’Souza continues to cement his total lack of creativity, asserting that a man who wrote a book title Dreams of My Father is haunted by … dreams of his father. 🙄

  24. donna says:


    when you have an hour, there is an interesting interview on c-span of D’Souza with Brit author Firstbrook who explored “27 generations of President Obama’s Kenyan ancestors”

    about half way through, they get into the “birthers”, obama’s erroneous “mombasa birth”, 7th day adventists, etc


    another interesting article is “Conspiracy of Dunces” – Christie, McDonnell, and now Dinesh D’Souza. Conservatives believe the Obama administration has declared a secret war on their heroes.

    it ends with:

    And before we ask how D’Souza comes out of this, consider where he’s been. Back in 2012, around the time of the suspect donations, D’Souza resigned under duress from the presidency of King’s College. He’d scandalized the evangelical community after appearing at a conference with his fiancé, Denise Joseph, while not yet divorced from his wife. Denise Joseph happens to be the possible “straw donor” whose money was refunded by the Wendy Long campaign.

    What about his $33 million–grossing Obama movie? Ah, yes—about that. D’Souza’s documentary had all the impact on Barack Obama’s re-election that a horsefly has on a windshield. Before the election, when a Frank Luntz focus group of swing voters tested the effectiveness of some anti-Obama documentaries. “It tested poorly,” reported the New York Times. “Luntz warned his clients that it could undermine their cause.” Now D’Souza himself is the cause. Things are looking up.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.