Skip to main content

The Big Lie: A Film Review of Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World without Her”

By Dan Falcone

In the mid-nineties I first saw the ultra-conservative propaganda artist Dinesh D’Souza debating the conformist and centrist democrat (small "d" as in philosophical proponent of indirect democracy) E.J. Dionne on C-SPAN. They discussed the legacy of Ronald Reagan and his presidency. D’Souza argued that Reagan created vast “prosperity” and with his “vision” and “leadership”, he “won” the Cold War – The End. Although Dionne used empirical evidence and basic economics to counter the right’s saintly regard of Reaganomics he never ventured too deep into the depths of Reagan’s disastrous domestic and foreign policy. To be fair, this was simply a small talk on politics and it essentially followed an easy to understand matrix of conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. As a result, the discourse was less than academic, very bland, and failed to resonate for people trying to understand the complexities of the events and the people discussed.

I am sorry to say that in my view the D’Souza worldview has continued on the same nonconstructive path. A short while back I saw his film about Obama entitled, Obama’s America: 2016. The additional sub-title reads: “Love him, hate him, you don’t know him.” I suppose the film was designed to reinforce to the existing 20% of the American electorate even further, the notion that Obama is attempting to institute sharia law and to create an old Soviet styled communist state. When viewing 2016 I found it extreme, convoluted and simple minded. America followed a similar trajectory.

Never mind that Ronald Reagan, D’Souza’s idol, was a Democrat and Hollywood actor brought before the Un-American Activities Committee. D’Souza’s recycled thesis in America is that Obama is an illegitimate President because he is somehow different from the other modern day neo-liberal security state presidents before him. Setting Obama apart are his origins, his ethnicity, and his generation. Obama is not only our first non-white President he is our first president to be educated directly by the New Left. How this fails to translate into his approach of American domestic and foreign policy is immaterial to D’Souza for he is not providing a fair analysis. He is providing an over-simplified portrait of demonization. The film uses the concept of the “big lie.” The “big lie” is a propaganda technique that unleashes such an arsenal of misinformation that it becomes too daunting to correct such a series of untruths.

As Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig from Salon aptly put it, “It’s a movie designed to confirm the things a person already believes . . . as D’Souza’s weepy narration tracks over the computer-generated dissolution of a number of American monuments.”

http://www.salon.com/...

D’Souza uses the term “shame narrative” to discredit leftist scholars. In a lumped together enterprise he claims that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton dared to benefit from any professor who challenged the status quo. Ultimately, our nation will be doomed by welfare and universal health coverage, both nefarious concepts commonly emphasized to those receiving college educations.

From what I could tell in America, D’Souza sets out on a task to instruct us of five things (“big lies”) that are exceptionally and uniquely American: 1) there wasn’t really a Native American genocide because bacterial warfare was merely accidental. 2) African slave labor wasn’t really that unique because of indentured servants and slave societies existing elsewhere in history. 3) The stealing of Mexico can be justified through hindsight since Mexico is now such a poor and economically strangulated nation. 4) American Foreign policy is challenging because we have an ethnocentric burden to fulfill. (It’s a tough job being liberators but someone must do it.) 5) Capitalism brings technological advancements and we should probably ignore the undemocratic detriments that come along with wealth usurpation or transnational secret entities removed from public input. In fact, D’Souza’s tendency to whitewash complicated historical phenomena is the precise reason that revisionist perspectives entered the canon.

The most bizarre quote by D’Souza in the film in my view is when he states that, “taboo is the enemy of history and truth.” I’m not sure how he meant it. My guess is that he means that anything problematic and controversial historically should be left out of the discourse. And if pushed too far in the end, the plight of the Natives and the Africans was not so bad, and in some respects, it was even their own fault. Since every society is imperfect anyway, detailed histories are irrelevant if the national purpose isn’t completely served. This concept would be admired by Stalin and the worst brutal thugs to be imagined. Here, D’Souza is arguing for history to return as a weapon for the ruling class.  

When D’Souza interviews the renowned scholar – activist Noam Chomsky for less than a minute, D’Souza juxtaposes Chomsky’s voiceover (that comments on our exceptional-less foreign policy attitude), while he (D’Souza) silently reads about domestic matters from a book entitled, Occupy. The book is a transcribed lecture by Chomsky in memorial tribute to Howard Zinn. Furthermore, when the film was being advertised prior to release, it showed insightful Chomsky clips, but then failed to use them for the film.

In effect, D’Souza is trying to show the viewing audience that Chomsky’s diplomatic analysis can’t be trusted because he spoke to the Occupy Movement people. You know the un-showered, 99%, complainers, all simply hecklers, all refusing to work, people?

An interesting and ironic facet of America is that it promotes American exceptionalism and forgives America for it’s less than exceptional behavior around the globe at the same time. D’Souza casually asserts and believes that whenever American force violates its stated purpose it can be dismissed as part of the “universal conquest ethic;” which is precisely one of Chomsky’s points to demonstrate how we are NOT exceptional.

The treatment of Howard Zinn in the film was also uniquely awful. For starters, the film does not focus on Zinn’s work as an activist, an academic, or his historical theses. The film focuses on how Zinn’s work is mentioned in popular culture and makes references to various entertainment productions. This is intended make Zinn look like a flimsy caricature of the left and invites mistrust from the audience maybe not aware of Zinn’s real work. Howard Zinn’s message to students of history was that the story of America can be realized through a bottom-up perspective, not merely top-down.

Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States was a breakthrough and seminal work in emphasizing this way of looking at social history after a legacy of political, economic, and military history had dominated the discipline for so long. But D’Souza wants to constantly insist on everything being top-down, no matter how intellectually lazy or dishonest. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. in the film owed his “blueprint”, not his rhetoric, to Thomas Jefferson, thus implying that civil rights in America can be traced to of all places, America. (In a recent television interview, D'Souza used the word blueprint) Removed are the concepts of activism and popular struggle and this anticlimactic portrayal of classical civil rights as simply a speech is boring and predictable.  

I can gather that the viewing audience, mostly graying, applauds the film (literally when I went) because they sense that since the 1960s, America and Americans are in the uncomfortable position of grappling with our past while apologizing for a catalog of crimes they did not commit. They feel morally bullied by a pendulum swing.  D’Souza wants the audience to feel victimized. He himself is shown as a political prisoner in handcuffs. It is likely that the audience does not feel that the answer to positive history is to teach negative history. Even here, I think the audience is misguided. Partly because I suspect that D’Souza and his audience want to simply reinsert feel-good history at the expense of critical inquiry. But I don’t even have to suspect this because when D’Souza outlines his five big lies he finds America “not guilty” of all five “indictments.”

D’Souza and his film fans admire counter revisionism not because of its merits but simply to counter revisionism for the sake of it. They should know that Christopher Columbus is not being picked on necessarily. To be clear, the updated scholarship on Columbus was initiated as a compensatory measure, to fill in generations of factual gaps in using him as the start of basic American history courses. Slavery is not included in American history textbooks to shame the country and set political agendas either. Slavery is included in textbooks to compensate for years and years of omission, lies, or distortions that made slavery look like a little bit of work in between some play. Indigenous genocide is now included in the textbooks not to capitalize on a shame narrative but because it was glossed over for a long period of time in textbooks. For D’Souza and his fans to ignore the historiography and to exaggerate the current appeal for contemporary history education is irresponsible and frankly incorrect. America conflates a basic cultural literacy with threats to patriotism.  

 “Conservatives” who presume that “liberals” dominate mass communication and educational institutions presuppose many things about the youth culture without any awareness to the available educational resources or the secondary literature. D’Souza and “conservatives” automatically believe that “liberal” ideas are openly and freely expressed in schools (at times they are, but very often they are not) without having an understanding of what is taught. D’Souza was effective in proving this tendency to me in the film.

Keep in mind that orthodox history has pervaded for so long, that any attempt to deconstruct traditional narratives will appear as unfair and polemical. Any “shame” acquired from consistent intellectual exercises using the archival material (history) is a by-product of the inquiry. Dispassionate scholarship often brings a result that “conservatives” mistake as a “moral obligation” when it is merely the historical record brought to light.

Furthermore, the notion that “good examples” of history are deliberately omitted is basically false. For example, black people owning slaves is known by students (of color especially) and well researched (even D’Souza’s admits this in part). Of course, even here, the history is complicated as Henry Louis Gates pointed out. He explained that while blacks did own other blacks, at times it was for protection and humanitarian causes, (not mentioned in the film) and unfortunately, at other times it was not.

http://www.theroot.com/...

As for black success stories, they are very well understood by today’s students. Especially during Black History Month, a month so focused on the positives, that it has been thoroughly co-opted by the right-wing in an effort to present America as post-racial. Our educational system is too, very parochial and comfortable with presenting this notion, which is far from progressive.

In my view, D’Souza’s film America sets out to report that anyone who tries to make America more democratic or inclusive is motivated by disdain for the country. This is a rather strange conclusion. The film is so ahistorical, even apolitical, that it resides far outside of the mainstream. It doesn’t even meet the standards of a documentary. It is a more poorly done inverted example of a Michael Moore film – but even more heavily produced. At least the Moore films (I’m no fan) can argue that quotes and segments are purposefully arranged to alter context to frame a larger point, for even fiction can tell the truth. And let me defend D’Souza in saying that it does not serve any purpose to ridicule him or his adherents either.

Anyone with a basic understanding of American History, American Government, International Relations, Political Science or Economics will be able to see through D’Souza’s cut and paste falsities and optimism, but that does not remove some basic concerns of the Tea Party. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, it does not help to laugh at the “conservatives” or the Tea Party. It would help however to organize them or provide them with more coherent answers to essentially normal sentiments of government mistrust. That is for the organized left to grapple with and any effort to simply joke about the right-wing on late night television only emboldens and ensures a more fascist cause. This is all worth understanding and so is the film.

D’Souza says that “the conquest ethic would return if America never was.” The problem with this statement is that he already mentioned in the film previously that the conquest ethic for Americans was okay since all countries and cultures have this hard-wired ethic. I suppose he means that since the concepts of force, theft, and aggression are universal, it is better for America to utilize these while we still can. All the while, Obama, it must be noted and emphasized, is the first President to compromise our exceptional standing because of incremental health care/insurance reform and some modest entitlement packaging for the poor and working poor.

Additionally, Obama is to be called the first “panoptic” president – as if Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush I & II along with their agitprop, surveillance, spying, enemy lists, torture, cover-ups, bombings, invasions, drones, and dubious intelligence gathering formats - ever existed. This film is really a racialized punishment for Obama having a strategy to win two elections and for protecting American interests as he sees fit. It is Obama’s naked ambition to be an “effective” President in the tradition of Reagan that has D’Souza really upset. D’Souza claims that a centrist Democratic is jeopardizing our destined greatest and our securing of hegemony and wealth. Just ask Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, or Libya - to name a few, if Obama is actually poles apart from previous U.S. Presidents.  

Originally posted to Dan Falcone on Thu Jul 31, 2014 at 10:49 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Dan, this energy of yours will destroy all the ... (10+ / 0-)

    Dan, this energy of yours will destroy all the lies. Tipped and rec'd.

  •  Great In-depth analysis. Souza's a grifter. n/t (8+ / 0-)

    He who denies it is a tyrant; he who does not demand it is a coward; he who is indifferent to it is a slave; he who does not desire it is dead. -- Eugene Debs

    by kharma on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:27:33 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for watching it and explaining it so I (5+ / 0-)

    never have to see it...I'm afraid it could lead me to destroy my flatscreen TV!
    I have a counterfactual historical fantasy of Cristoforo Colombo staying in Genoa, and a Western hemisphere with trading relations with Renaissance Italy instead of colonization by Inquisition-ridden Spain and Portugal.  No genocide, no slavery...the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas would have been part of the European Enlightenment and gotten over their more unsavory sacrificial habits.

    Lost Tom. Lost Charlie. Can't read (Paul Newman, 'The Left Handed Gun')

    by richardvjohnson on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:30:32 AM PDT

    •  I'm working on an RPG background along those lines (5+ / 0-)

      It starts with Richard III winning - not losing - the battle of Bosworth in 1485, so he packs off his niece Elizabeth of York to marry Manuel of Portugal, which strengthens Portugal vs. Spain due to a solid English alliance.

      Then in 1520 Cortes doesn't survive the battle of Otumba (it was a near thing even in our world), and the attempt at conquering Mexico fails. Between Cuba not being able (or willing) to stage another invasion, the Turks becoming insurgent (again), and England & Portugal leaning on Spain, no further military attempts are made. Within ~20 years the remaining Spanish colonies are left to succeed or fail on their own (and most of them fail, or are taken over by resurgent natives).

      The short of it is, Portugal has a free hand in South America, but Brazil becomes the tail that wags the Portuguese dog until they flat-out take over. The Aztec empire is still ripped apart by internal and external stresses, while a revival of the Kukulcan/Quetzalcoatl cult takes hold among the Maya (this version was very opposed to human sacrifice, which is why it was driven underground in the first place), and a modified "Mayincatec" successor state eventually rises from the chaos and expands northward.

      Meanwhile, the British actively explore the North Atlantic under Richard and his successors (Richard would have been at least as interested in fostering international trade as Henry VII, since he had been a refugee among Flemish wool merchants once on a time), gain a foothold in Newfoundland, and expand south and west from there. (Columbus is a footnote in this history - it is John and Sebastian Cabot who are the Big Cheeses.)

      Eventually the two cultures meet at the Mississippi...and each stays on its own side after several inconclusive wars, being by that time fairly evenly matched. There is a "cold war" on, with each side trying - but generally failing - to gain an advantage over the other. (An additional problem for the "Toltec Empire" is that the Russian Empire has colonized the Pacific Northwest and is beginning to nibble on their own northwest frontiers.)

      I took much of the background from Andre Norton's Quest Crosstime, putting in some research and speculations of my own - for instance, the governor of Cuba, whom Cortes had to defy and outwit to get his little invasion going, was a very venal man and might well have preferred to milk the Mesoamerican cow by selling them whatever they wanted - and they would certainly want horses, donkeys, weapons, steel, and knowledge.

      It's not completely worked out yet, but I'm having a lot of fun with it.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 10:22:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another interesting possibility (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass, richardvjohnson

        is a stronger Byzantium.

        Two possibilities:

        First, and more likely, there is no treachery at Manzikert, and the Empire wins the battle.

        Second, the Venetian Fourth Crusade either foundered, or due to some religious event actually went to the Holy Land. There's no Latin Kingdom and no fractionalization of the Empire, which strengthens and is able to resist the Turks.

        Accommodations with the Muslim world lead to better trade with the Far East, and less initiative for exploration.

        •  If Byzantium won Manzikert there might have been (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          soaglow

          NO Crusades...the first one was later than that.  What a great idea!  There are so many ways out of the hell we're in, I wish to be in one of those parallels...and I truly believe they're out there, they exist.    

          Lost Tom. Lost Charlie. Can't read (Paul Newman, 'The Left Handed Gun')

          by richardvjohnson on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 03:59:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A third possibility (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            richardvjohnson

            The line of Ottonian Holy Roman Emperors does not die out, and the connections between the HRE and the Byzantine becomes stronger and stronger.

            There was an interesting recent biography of Gerbert/Pope Sylvester that, while heavily overstating his accomplishments, strongly suggests that the fall of the Ottonians and Sylvester destroyed opportunities for concord among the HRE, the Byzantines and at least the Cordovan Caliphate.

      •  Oh, wow, please pursue it, I love plausible (0+ / 0-)

        counterfactuals!

        Lost Tom. Lost Charlie. Can't read (Paul Newman, 'The Left Handed Gun')

        by richardvjohnson on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 03:55:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I Think John Brunner Beat You To It (0+ / 0-)

        I read a novel of his with a similar supposition, but can't think of the title.

  •  Clearly you have a lot to say... (4+ / 0-)

    but I encourage you to cite your sources more clearly. As it stands, it's nearly impossible to track back to the people you're quoting, and on this site it's important to be able to do that. Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig said this in Salon when? And Henry Louis Gates said that when and where?

    You can probably find some ways to incorporate links via these tips, or by checking with someone at the New Diarists group.

    Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
    ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue If you'd like to join the Motor City Kossacks, send me a Kosmail.

    by peregrine kate on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 07:42:38 AM PDT

    •  I can't imagine how this piece got spotlighted. (0+ / 0-)

      There are so many things wrong with it.

      From paragraph 1:
      a small error like "centrist democrat" without capitalizing "Democrat" to a much larger conceptual problem that suggests the differences between “conservative” vs. “liberal” or “Republican vs. Democrat” are somewhat irrelevant.

      You might want to consult with Kos on this point. I know he has a definite opinion on the enormous differences between Republicans and Democrats.

      This is problematic:

      ". . . an illegitimate President because he is somehow different from the other modern day neo-liberal security state presidents before him. Setting Obama apart are his origins, . . . "
      In somebody's mind, this might be a critique from the left.
      To me, it reeks of reconstituted rightwing bullet points.

      It's thinly disguised, poison pen, anti-Democratic propaganda, and even worse, it was poorly done.

  •  The sequel is coming! (4+ / 0-)

    "Dinesh D'Souza: Imagine the World Without Him."

    I'll give you credit for sitting through the whole grim thing and then actually deconstructing it.  D'Souza himself is wasting the Koch brothers' money preening in front of the camera.  However, like any ranting, there are certain themes that explain how the cultural right wing thinks.  (And a certain amount of working the jury pool and generally whining about people who don't recognize his greatness, something not unique to right wingers.)  You've pulled these out from his drek presentation very well.  In particular, you've noticed the intellectual and generational gaps at work here.  D'Souza is Obama's age or younger but ideologically he's part of the over-65 teabagger generation, and part of the crazies who infested Dartmouth in the 1980s at the behest of well-heeled conservative alumni.

  •  Does DailyKos really need a movie review of a (0+ / 0-)

    rightwing docufantasy few of us would watch, even under duress?

  •  Laughing At The Tea Party (0+ / 0-)

    I get the high-minded notion of asking liberals to stop mocking Tea Party types and find common cause with them (over banking issues and abuses of federal power), but that presumes that the other side is sincere in actually wanting to do just that.  As in, actually work with the "other side" towards solving something as opposed to having an outlet for the rage they feel at their own impotence and mediocrity.  

    I suppose you could cobble together a handful of TPers that are as angry at the big banks as we are, but I tend to see a lot of old white folks who are drunk on right wing propaganda and have more anger than insight.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

    by Bring the Lions on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 10:34:34 AM PDT

    •  That assumes that the Teabaggers are angry in a (0+ / 0-)

      logical way and wish to work with Democrats.  Even the most extremely right wing Teabaggers are afraid that if they are seen cooperating with a Democrat, any Democrat, even on something that the Teabaggers want, they will be primaries by a well funded and much more right wing Teabagger.  I think that trying to find common cause with any of them on anything is useless.  

      I really do not think that any of them are smart enough to see that they do have common cause with progressives on some issues, and even if they did, they would never be caught in the same room with a "liberal'.

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  D’Souza is scarcely worthy to even mention... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jbsoul

    ...the names "Noam Chomsky" and "Howard Zinn".  It's like when Duff McKagan critiqued the guitar skills of Jeff Beck: absurd and ludicrous.

    All that is necessary for the triumph of the Right is that progressives do nothing.

    by Mystic Michael on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 11:59:05 AM PDT

  •  D'Souza is a career RW hack (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jbsoul

    going back to his early days on the RW dole at the Dartmouth Review. Expecting anything other than deception and distortion from him would be the height of naivete.

    This was already apparent in the 90's when he contacted the community organization I was affiliated with for help researching a book ostensibly dealing with hate crime and hate groups. Since it was clear that any work by D'Souza would only be a pretext to attack and discredit the work of progressives on these issues, we turned him down flat.

    So for me the most disturbing aspect of the diary is the info that Noam Chomsky lent himself to this exercise in RW fear mongering. Whatever his merits as an academic theorist, Chomsky's practical political judgement is less than stellar. He's made similar errors in the past, most notably his association with Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson in the name of free speech.

    I don't doubt Chomsky's sincerity but he really seems to have a blind spot when it comes to RW hacks.  

    Nothing human is alien to me.

    by WB Reeves on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 12:08:21 PM PDT

  •  Another grifting political operative..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey

    Of course, it's propaganda.

    And then there's this:

    On May 20, 2014, D'Souza pleaded guilty to one felony count of making illegal contributions in the names of others.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Fri Aug 01, 2014 at 01:50:09 PM PDT

  •  I wish someone would make a film about D'Souza. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, Val

    "D'Souza.  Imagine America Without Him."

  •  This film is absolute dreck (0+ / 0-)

    And doesn't deserve any of the attention heaped on it.  It is rated 9% "Rotten" on rotten tomatoes.

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Sat Aug 02, 2014 at 07:45:06 PM PDT

  •  When is Duh-nish going to prison? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak

    I can't wait for the book he writes in the joint....

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 04:51:23 AM PDT

  •  Not sure this hack deserves the attention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak

    He's going to jail soon, hopefully, and his movies are a distinctly 21st century blend of laughable and dangerous media.

    I don't think his hackwork deserves this level of attention; it's almost like we're taking him seriously. We shouldn't. He deserves mockery and scorn. Nothing more.

    "The Weight is a Gift." - Nada Surf

    by AdHack on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 09:33:16 AM PDT

  •  BTW, limbaugh's selling this POS, like WND TV (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rashaverak, laurnj

    (WND =world net daily)

     they're using their advertising budgets to help keep limbaugh afloat.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Aug 03, 2014 at 12:39:08 PM PDT

Click here for the mobile view of the site