Todd Akin’s rape comments find sympathy among conservative women in his district
FENTON, MO. — A thousand miles from the Republican National Convention in Tampa and the approaching winds of Tropical Storm Isaac, Sharon Barnes and Janice DeWeese were busy in the heart of conservative America, battling their own gusts of wind, setting up a white tent and arranging tables to keep the “Defending What’s Sacred!” pamphlets from blowing away.
“Whoa!” Barnes said as a strong gust rotated the ornament on top of the flagpole they’d just lashed to the tent. “Our eagle’s backwards!”
She fixed it and then stabbed a dozen campaign signs into the dirt, including some for Rep. Todd Akin, the U.S. Senate candidate whose recent comments about rape caused such controversy — and who happens to be the local congressman. By 11 a.m. Saturday, Barnes and DeWeese had claimed a corner of a grassy field for the Federated Republican Women of Missouri, 2nd District. Fenton Days, a fair in suburban St. Louis, was underway, and so was their mission to stand for the cause of conservative values.
“Hello, there!” Barnes said to a woman looking at the $3 tins with President Obama’s face on them. “Did you see the Disappoint-Mints?”
In many ways, the two women, and others who would drop by as the day went on, are the audience that liberal America understands the least and that Ann Romney, wife of Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, will be addressing in her speech at the convention in Tampa on Tuesday night: conservative women whose energy and turnout are crucial to her husband’s campaign.
They are women who think that they have in some ways become less liberated in recent decades, not more; who think that easy abortion, easy birth control and a tawdry popular culture have degraded their stature, not elevated it. Though the women here were of varying faiths and economic backgrounds, they were white and bound by a shared unease with Obama in particular and liberals in general, who seemed so often to hold them in contempt.
“So you’re not upset about the ‘war on women’?” joked a man in a golf shirt who stopped by for a Romney bumper sticker, referring to the slogan Democrats have used to cast Republicans as hostile to women.
“Do we look battle-scarred?” DeWeese quipped.
“We’re doing perfectly fine,” said Barnes, who was cheery — considering that she’d recently been called a “monster” and a “blasphemous disgrace,” and had her soul condemned to hell for defending Akin after he said in an interview that in instances of “legitimate rape,” pregnancy is rare because women’s bodies somehow shut it down.
His remarks were quickly discredited by many doctors and provoked condemnation from across the nation, including from Romney. But they found sympathy here in Akin’s solidly conservative 2nd Congressional District.
Barnes, a local Republican committeewoman, told a reporter that if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, then God has “blessed this person with a life” that should not be taken.
“I didn’t mean a loving gift,” Barnes later clarified. “The whole concept of rape is so violent, so horrific. I was just trying to say — it’s just hard to express that the child should not be punished.”
She did not understand the wrath directed at her, only that she would bear it.
“You wonder where all that anger is coming from,” she said. “They don’t even know me.”
She sat in a folding chair by the tent, the daughter of union Democrats from central Illinois, brushing away the American flag that kept flapping in her face.
“No anger issues here,” Barnes said to the man still looking for the Romney bumper sticker.
A band was starting to play Willie Nelson songs, barbecue smoke was in the air and kids were in the moon bounce, and Barnes, who is 60, was in good spirits.
“The more they attack, the more I dig my heels in,” she said, defending views that she traces back to a civics teacher who had students vote in the 1964 presidential election between Republican Barry Goldwater and Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Barnes, 12, picked Goldwater.
“He was the underdog,” she said. “Then later, when I really got into it, I thought: ‘Yeah, I’m for liberty. Yeah, I’m for fiscal responsibility. Yeah, I believe everyone should be responsible for their own actions,’ ” she said, describing values she considers conservative. “It sort of stuck.”
Barnes had always understood life through the prism of her own experience, and little had happened over the years to change her politics. She went to college at Illinois Wesleyan University in the 1970s and heard about women burning bras and demonstrating for equal rights, which never really made sense to her, she said.
“I don’t know, I personally never felt that I needed liberating,” Barnes said. “I guess that is thanks to my parents. They always said: ‘Do whatever you want to do. Work hard and you will get where you want to be.’ ”
She took that to heart, never questioning whether she got more or less than she deserved. After college, she moved into an efficiency apartment and worked two jobs, as a secretary and at Burger King. She was so poor that she applied for food stamps but got rejected for making too much money, she said.
She survived on peanut butter and crackers, and came to expect that others facing tough times could, too, if they were as determined. She eventually saved enough money to move to St. Louis, where she held several more secretarial jobs until she finally “married the boss,” as she put it.
She and her husband never had children, which she called a “conscious choice” of the sort she figures all women have. Instead, they traveled the world for his work, she started a small business making clothespin dolls, and these days she enjoys dancing with her husband at local Twilight Tuesdays concerts in the fall. She has also become immersed in Republican politics, a passion that began when she volunteered during the 2000 election.
Barnes’s business card now lists positions in eight local Republican organizations, including the one sponsoring Fenton Days, where she sat in a lawn chair in the sun.
“Did you see ‘2016’?”asked a woman under the tent, referring to a new film that claims Obama’s upbringing infused him with anti-colonial attitudes that make him uncomfortable with American preeminence, and that describes a diminished nation if he wins reelection.
“I did,” said Barnes, who’d gone to a 10 a.m. showing the day before, when a packed theater of mostly elderly people sat silently through the pre-movie Patti Smith medley and mmm-hmmed through the film until its apocalyptic final scene featuring a shot of a gray-toned cemetery.
“Which dream will we carry forward?” the narrator asked. “Obama’s dream? . . . Or America’s dream? The future is in your hands.”
“Scary,” Barnes said then, and repeated it now.
“Scary,” said the woman under the tent. “I went to the 11:10 at Ronnie’s 20. Then I went to see ‘Sparkle.’ ”
“Hello!” Barnes said to a woman perusing the Akin lawn signs, which were fluttering in the wind.
“So how are you guys coming back on the Akin thing?” asked Betty Rottler, 67.
“Well, he’s our candidate, and we’re all working to defeat McCaskill,” said Barnes, referring to Akin’s Democratic opponent in the Senate race.
Rottler nodded.
“I’m for Todd,” she said. “Life is right.”
Rottler said that for her, being a conservative woman had to do with being a Christian and a Catholic woman, with upholding a moral order that places respect for life at the center. She said she is against abortion and against the death penalty. She is against anything that in her view degrades the value of life.
“All this premarital sex everywhere, all these abortions, all this violence just becoming normal,” she said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me.”
She looked out across the grassy fairground, where there were booths for the Girl Scouts, for beer, for funnel cakes and for a cellulite-reduction system promising women that it would “bring your sexy back.”
To Rottler’s way of thinking, American culture has become too indulgent, too reckless with life. Sexual permissiveness has cheapened a woman’s value. Legalized abortion, she believes, has allowed a woman to kill an essential part of herself.
“Is a ‘liberated woman’ really freer?” asked Rottler, who has two adopted children. “To me, a woman should be on a pedestal. We are special — we bear children, we take care of children, we’re working. Actually, if we had our heads on straight, women could really run the world. Actually, we do run the world.”
Around 4 p.m., Barnes and DeWeese began discussing upcoming political events they were organizing. There was a luncheon and a dictionary giveaway and a speaking engagement in Colorado.
“Okay,” Barnes said to DeWeese over the band. “Are you doing the first-responders lunch?
DeWeese said Barnes probably does four times as much work as any Missouri Republican she knows. Barnes said she was inspired by her favorite Ronald Reagan quote, words she appends, in red type, to every e-mail: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”
“That’s part of being a conservative Republican woman,” said Barnes, who said she enjoys going to state conventions, where she feels useful and where she gets to wear her GOP-red stilettos — also part of being a Republican woman. “You do everything!”
It rained, and she and DeWeese packed the buttons and the candidates’ pamphlets under the tent. Then the sun came out and they put everything out again, anchoring it against the wind.
Tricia Sousan, 42, walked up with her 7-year-old son.
“So are you guys still supporting Akin?” she asked.
DeWeese and Barnes nodded as they searched for a Constitution for Sousan’s son, who kept poking his mother with a stick, which she endured patiently.
Sousan said she had been married 23 years, had a 17-year-old daughter, worked as a nurse and then quit to stay home with her son. She was only just now paying attention to politics.
“I was appalled at everyone slamming Akin,” she said.
She is pro-life; she believes in working on a marriage instead of getting an easy divorce; she believes in staying home to raise your children, if possible.
“And see that?” Sousan said, pointing to a young couple kissing unreservedly on a park bench.
She thought they should have some sense of decorum.
She was figuring out what DeWeese had been taught since she was a little girl by a family that traces its roots to the Mayflower.
“It’s an honor being a conservative woman,” said DeWeese, who started her own food-packaging business, has a daughter who is a pilot, packs a handgun and gave her age as “somewhere between menopause and death.” “You are representing all that is good. You want to be a role model for those who come after. I am a woman, a mother, a grandmother, and I don’t want to diminish that. I’m a daughter of the American Revolution.”
A young man walked up.
“So what do you all think about Akin?” he asked.
“Well, he’s our candidate,” Barnes said once again.
“I mean about what he said,” the young man persisted.
“We’ve moved on,” Barnes said, and soon it was 5 p.m.
She and DeWeese began putting pamphlets back in boxes, folding up tables, pulling the Akin signs out of the ground and putting away the flag, at which point DeWeese paused.
“Are we going to fold this flag properly?” she asked Barnes.
Barnes was exhausted in the eighth hour of standing for conservative womanhood on a hot and windy day. She and DeWeese rolled it, carefully.
_______________________________________________
The Lazy Paralytic
The Very Poorly Prepared Crowd
1. The day was drawing to a close, and the twelve apostles came to Jesus and said, “Send the crowd away, so that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside, to lodge and get provisions; for we are here in a deserted place.” 2 But Jesus said to them, “Why not give them something to eat?” They said, "We have no more than five loaves and two fish—unless we are to go and buy food for all these people." 3 For there were about five thousand men. And Jesus said to his disciples, “You know what? You’re right. Don’t waste your time and shekels. It would be positively immoral for you to spend any of your hard-earned money for these people. They knew full well that they were coming to a deserted place, and should have relied on themselves and brought more food. As far as I’m concerned, it’s every five thousand men for themselves.” 4. The disciples were astonished by this teaching. “But Lord,” said Thomas. “The crowd will surely go hungry.” Jesus was amazed at his hard-headedness. “That’s not my problem, Thomas. Better that their stomachs are empty than they become overly dependent on someone in authority to provide loaves and fishes for them on a regular basis. Where will it end? Will I have to feed them everyday?” “No, Lord,” said Thomas, “Just today. When they are without food. After they have eaten their fill, they will be healthy, and so better able to listen to your word and learn from you.” Jesus was grieved at Thomas’s answer. Jesus answered, "It is written: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” So taking the five loaves and the two fish, he looked up to heaven, and took one loaf and one fish for himself, and gave the rest to the twelve, based on their previously agreed-upon contractual per diem. But he distributed none to the crowd, because they needed to be taught a lesson. So Jesus ate and he was satisfied. The disciples somewhat less so. "Delicious," said Jesus. What was left over was gathered up and saved for Jesus, should he grow hungry in a few hours. The very poorly prepared crowd soon dispersed.
The Rich and Therefore Blessed Young Man
1. As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to him and knelt before him, and asked, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 2. And Jesus said to him, “What have you done so far?” 3. And he said to Him, “Well I was born into a wealthy family, got into a good school in Galilee because my parents donated a few thousand talents for a building with a nice reed roof, and now I have a high-paying job in the Roman treasury managing risk.” 4. Looking at him, Jesus felt an admiration for him, and said to him, “Blessed are you! For you are not far from being independently wealthy." And the man was happy. Then Jesus said, "But there is one thing you lack: A bigger house in a gated community in Tiberias. Buy that and you will have a treasure indeed. And make sure you get a stone countertop for the kitchen. Those are really nice." The disciples were amazed. 5. Peter asked him, “Lord, shouldn’t he sell all his possessions and give it to the poor?” Jesus grew angry. “Get behind me, Satan! He has earned it!” Peter protested: “Lord,” he said, “Did this man not have an unjust advantage? What about those who are not born into wealthy families, or who do not have the benefit of a good education, or who, despite all their toil, live in the poorer areas of Galilee, like Nazareth, your own home town?” 6. “Well,” said Jesus, “first of all, that’s why I left Nazareth. There were too many poor people always asking me for charity. They were as numerous as the stars in the sky, and they annoyed me. Second, once people start spending again, like this rich young man, the Galilean economy will inevitably rebound, and eventually some of it will trickle down to the poor. Blessed are the patient! But giving the money away, especially if he can’t write it off, is a big fat waste.” The disciples’ amazement knew no bounds. “But Lord," they said, "what about the passages in both the Law and the Prophets that tell us to care for widows and orphans, for the poor, for the sick, for the refugee? What about the many passages in the Scriptures about justice?” 7. “Those are just metaphors,” said Jesus. “Don’t take everything so literally.”
James Martin, SJ
Only 4 percent of voters in swing states are Latino
There is no question the Hispanic population is the fastest voting bloc in the nation. However, U.S. Census Bureau numbers provide a slightly different picture of the Latino voter- the sought-after bloc only represents 4 percent of the vote in most swing states.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), an immigration think tank, pooled all the Census Bureau data to formulate a composite of the Hispanic voter. CIS concluded that Latino voters represent 8.9 percent of the 2012 voting electorate, up 1.5 percent in 2008. Surprisingly, the Hispanic voters only represent about 4 percent of the vote in the important swing states.
“While Hispanic voters are a small share of the electorate, in a close election they could decide the outcome,” explained Steve Camarota, CIS director of research. “Of course, the same is true of many other voting blocs, such as veterans or senior citizens. It would a mistake to overemphasize race to the exclusion of other factors.”
With the presidential race in a dead heat, the GOP’s immigration platform may not boost their standing inside the illegal immigration population.
This week at the Republican convention, leaders unveiled a tough illegal immigration platform that includes a call to end all sanctuary cities, finish building the southwest border fence and mandate all businesses to use E-Verify.
That being said, just how many Hispanic voters does Presidential-hopeful, Mitt Romney, really need? The CIS comprehensive study provides a snapshot of the Latino voter.
National share of the Hispanic vote:
- We project that in November 2012 Hispanics will comprise 17.2 percent of the total U.S. population, 15 percent of adults, 11.2 percent of adult citizens, and 8.9 percent of actual voters.
- In 2012, non-Hispanic whites are expected to be 73.4 percent of the national vote and non-Hispanic blacks are expected to be 12.2 percent.
- To place the Hispanic share of the electorate into perspective, eight percentage points of the Hispanic vote nationally equals slightly less than one percentage point of the non-Hispanic white vote.
- The 8.9 percent Hispanic share of voters compares to veterans (12 percent), those with family incomes above $100,000 (18 percent), seniors 65 and older (19 percent), married persons (60 percent), and those who live in owner-occupied housing (80 percent).
- In terms of voter turnout, we project that 52.7 percent (± 0.6) of eligible Hispanics will vote in the upcoming election, an increase from 49.9 percent in 2008 and a continuation of the past decade’s long upward trend.
- The projected Hispanic voter participation rate of 52.7 percent compares to 66.1 percent for non-Hispanic whites and 65.2 percent for non-Hispanic blacks in 2008.
Share in Battleground States:
- In the seven states listed by The Cook Political Report in July as “toss-ups”, we project that Hispanics will average 8.0 percent of voters in 2012, compared to 8.9 percent nationally. The seven toss-up states are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia.
- In the four states listed by Cook as “leaning” toward one party or the other, the Hispanic vote will average 2.8 percent of the electorate in November. The four leaning states are Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina.
- In the seven states Cook identifies as “likely” for one party or the other, Hispanics will average 9.8 percent of the vote. Excluding New Mexico, they will average 4.4 percent of voters in the remaining six “likely” states. The likely states are Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Maine, Minnesota, and New Mexico.
- Taken together Hispanics will average 7.6 percent of the electorate across the “toss-up”, “leaning”, and “likely” states. If we combine the populations of these states and calculate the Hispanic share of the electorate, Hispanics are projected to be 6.6 percent of the vote.
- The Hispanic share of voters varies significantly in the 18 battleground states. In 12 of the 18 states, Hispanics are projected to be less than 4 percent of the electorate (Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, and Maine). But in four of the states (New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona), Hispanics will be more than 16 percent of the vote.
- Non-Hispanic whites are projected to be slightly overrepresented (79.4 percent) in battleground states relative to their share of the national electorate. Like Hispanics, non-Hispanic blacks (9.4 percent) tend to be slightly underrepresented in battleground states.
While the number of Hispanic voters in the swing states represents a much lower number than most politicos report, in a close race they can tip the scales in favor of Democrats.
_______________________________________________
This is an edited version of the exchange - you can hear it all here: http://media.newstalk.ie/extra/1602/popup
From May 2010, an exchange between Michael D Higgins (who was elected President of Ireland last year) and Tea Party-loving radio guy Michael Graham on Irish radio station Newstalk 106-108fm.
Apologies for closing the comments on the video, I tried opening them before but was inundated with racist bile from deranged Tea Party supporters (by the way: it's 'Muslim', not 'muslin', and it's 'Kenya', not 'kenyah') .... and life's too short for that. Sorry, haven't the time to be wading through them all, you can comment on any of the sites where the video is appearing. Thanks.
A Senile Joe Biden Endorses Ryan in Surprise Appearance at Republican Convention; Ryan Throws “Grandpa Joe” Off StageBrandon J. Weichert
TAMPA—Joe Biden seems to be quite confused as to where he’s at most of the time. In fact, many speculate that old Uncle Joe is senile. But yesterday’s most recent events in Tampa Bay, Florida really threw a proverbial wrench in President Obama’s reelection plans.
 |
| Joe Biden looks upon the Republican National Convention - dazed, confused, and senile-stricken |
“We were filing into the convention and the last thing we expected to see was [Vice-President] Biden standing on stage, readying to give a speech,” said Janet Ramos, head of the moderate group Kick the Kenyan Out! Told The Washington Fancy.
Indeed, according to reports, the Vice-President (who had rescheduled his trip to Tampa to a later date this week) had entered the Convention Center early in the morning with an extremely confused look on his face, babbling incoherently.
“He’s very spry,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said, when asked why no one stopped Biden from taking stage. “He seemed genuinely confused as to where he was and insisted that he had an urgent speech to give.”
And what an urgent speech it ended up being: once everyone filed in and the Convention opened, Joe Biden came strutting out on to the stage. The reaction from the crowd was mixed, but Biden seemed to not understand that he was at the wrong convention. At one point, he apparently confused the excessive “Boos” in the audience with joyous “woos” and started chanting along with them, only serving to further antagonize the audience, as they believed he was mocking them.
To make matters worse, Biden’s speech was laced with expletives and punctuated with racial diatribes. At one point, he apologized to the Republican audience for his inappropriate comments in Danville, VA (in which he claimed to a predominantly black audience that Republicans wanted to “keep them in chains”) by stating that he was “acting like a real Jew” when he made those comments.
After making those remarks, he went on to claim that he missed seeing Sarah Palin because she had a “smokin’ bod” and proceeded to make the dubious claim that he’d “like to liberate that woman.”
“We were in shock,” said Andrea Tantaros of the FOX News network. “No one could believe that we were actually witnessing this—and no one was stopping him!” she added.
When asked why this travesty was allowed to continue, one RNC spokesman claimed, “Not only was this golden television, but this probably just won the election for us!”
But not so fast, according to sources; the major news outlets are planning on running a special on how the Republican Party is waging a “War on Wrinkles” and the actions at the Convention prove not how the Democrats are placing inept, racist leaders in office, but how Republicans hate old people.
That point of Biden’s senility was further made clear when Joe Biden began claiming that he longed to return to the Senate, that his heart was not in the Vice-Presidency, and that he was merely an unworthy placeholder. In a moment of clear confusion, he channeled remarks he made previously about Hillary Clinton and turned them to reflect on Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan’ “I believe Poindexter [Ryan] is infinitely more qualified than I to be Vice-President.”
The speech, which lasted an incredible six hours—amidst horrified pleas to stop from the audience—only ended when Biden’s opponent, Paul Ryan (a man accused of hating old people because of his fervent commitment to repealing Social Security) used the strength garnered from his cultish use of the workout program P90X, and pushed Biden off of the stage, into the crowd below, yelling “Calculate that, Grandpa!” Someone in the crowd yelled, “Old Guy Mosh Pit!” and proceeded to throw Joe Biden about like a beach ball.
“As you can see, Paul Ryan really wants to throw grandpa off of a cliff,” noted Richard Gibbs, an Obama Campaign spokesman, said.
“Normally the Vice-President is heavily medicated, ” Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary informed the press. “The Vice-President means well—and he really is intelligent—but, over the years, so much plaque has built around his brain that it has become a shriveled husk,” Carney explained with a degree of sadness. “This recent flap just proves the point that Barack Obama is even more qualified to be President. By performing this noble act of senility, Joe Biden hasn’t confirmed America’s worst fears about this administration, they’ve just proved that the Republican Party hates old people.”
In a related story, Tom Brokaw is hosting an NBC Special about how the Republican Party is planning an “Octogenarian Holocaust” and how Paul Ryan is its leader. This most recent kerfuffle with the poor, senile Biden will not help the case.
'2016: Obama's America': Fact-checking conservative movie
By Beth Fouhy Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- "2016: Obama's America," a new conservative film exploring the roots of President Barack Obama's political views, took in $6.2 million to make it one of the highest-grossing movies of last weekend. The film, written and narrated by conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, argues that Obama was heavily influenced by what D'Souza calls the "anti-colonial" beliefs of his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life.
To document that claim, D'Souza travels to Kenya to interview members of Obama's extended family as well as to Hawaii and Indonesia, where Obama grew up. He also cites several actions and policy positions Obama has taken to support the thesis that Obama is ideologically rooted in the Third World and harbors contempt for the country that elected him its first black president.
The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.
It's true that Obama's father lived most of his life in Kenya, an African nation once colonized by the British, and that Obama's reverence for his absent father frames his best-selling memoir. D'Souza even sees clues in the book's title: "Notice it says 'Dreams From My Father,' not 'of' my father," D'Souza says.
It's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D'Souza frames that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president's ties to his father, who died in a car crash when Obama was in college.
D'Souza interviews Paul Vitz, a New York University psychologist who has studied the impact of absent fathers on children. In Obama's case, Vitz says, the abandonment meant "he has the tension between the Americanism and his Africanism. He himself is an intersection of major political forces in his own psychology."
From there, the evidence D'Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin.
D'Souza says Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, shared his father's left-leaning views. After living in Indonesia for several years, D'Souza said, Dunham sent the younger Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii so he would not be influenced by her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who worked for American oil companies and fought communists as a member of the Indonesian army.
"Ann separates Barry from Lolo's growing pro-Western influence," D'Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.
In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence, Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts -- again with no evidence -- that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended in Honolulu.
"Oppression studies, if you will. Obama got plenty of that when he was here in Punahou," D'Souza says, standing on the campus.
In Kenya, D'Souza interviews Philip Ochieng, a lifelong friend of the president's father, who claims the elder Obama was "totally anti-colonial." Ochieng also discloses some of his own political views, complaining about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and saying the U.S. refuses to "tame" Israel, which he calls a "Trojan horse in the Middle East." D'Souza seems to suggest that if a onetime friend of Obama's late father holds those opinions, so too must the president himself.
D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:
-- D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.
-- D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of terrorists in the region.
--D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.
--D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on Iran to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
-- D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.
Dinesh D'Souza: Fact-Checking AP's Fact Check on '2016: Obama's America'
A few days ago the Associated Press ran a news article by reporter Beth Fouhy charging that my film "2016" contains serious factual errors. Remarkably, for a news article, the reporter didn't bother to check with me or anyone else at the film. This was my first indication that something was deeply wrong with this article.
Let's look at the specific charges raised in the AP article.
First, it claims that I "never mention the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George Bush." This is simply false. The film quotes former Comptroller David Walker saying that the national debt exploded under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. The film shows a clear graphic depicting the actual debt increase under both presidents, so that the viewer can compare them. The simple truth is that Bush's largest annual deficits were below $500 billion and Obama's lowest annual deficit was above $1 trillion. So Bush was a big spender and Obama an even bigger spender. This is made crystal-clear in the film.
Second, the AP article quotes me as saying that Obama has "done nothing" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. This is a deliberate misquotation. Actually in the film I recall a prediction that I made in my book The Roots of Obama's Rage. The prediction was that Obama "would do nothing significant" to prevent Iran from getting nuclear bombs. By omitting the word "significant," AP can then claim that Obama has taken some measures, including some modest sanctions, against Iran. But my point is that these measures are so weak that they cannot be expected to -- and in fact haven't -- deterred the mullahs in the slightest.
Third, the AP article "refutes" my contention that Obama is weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadis fighting against America by pointing out that Obama ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden and has also approved drone strikes against Al Qaeda. My argument was based on the premise that Obama wants to close down Guantanamo and to extend constitutional rights to jihadis captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. I explained Obama's peculiar position by saying that he views these jihadis as freedom fighters seeking to liberate their countries from American occupation. As Obama has made clear, he views Bin Laden and Al Qaeda quite differently, as international gangsters who go abroad to kill innocent people. So my argument about Obama is quite consistent with his actions against Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Fourth, the AP article claims that I misrepresent Obama's position on the Falkland Islands. Not true. The British position on the Falklands is that the islands belong to the U.K. The Argentine position supports negotiations over the control of the islands. Despite the special relationship between America and Britain, and despite the fact that Republican and Democratic presidents have supported the British position, the Obama administration has switched sides and now supports the Argentine position calling for negotiations. This is reflected in resolutions passed by the Organization of American States and backed by the United States.
Finally the AP article disputes the film's claim that Obama removed a Winston Churchill bust from the Oval Office. The AP article takes its cue from a White House blog that initially attempted to deny this and obfuscate the issue by claiming possession of a second bust. This second bust was supposedly under repair but has now mysteriously surfaced. But none of this changes the fact that one of Obama's first actions as president was to return the Oval Office bust of Churchill. Obama didn't just want to relocate it, he wanted it given back to Britain. That bust now sits in the home of the British ambassador. The film explains Obama's hostility to Churchill by noting that he was a champion of colonialism and ordered a crackdown on an anti-colonial rebellion in Kenya in which Obama's father and grandfather were both detained. So we know what Obama did, and we know why he might have wanted to do it. As for the original White House blog, the White House has admitted its inaccuracy and apologized.
So what's going on here? Certainly it's possible to debate the issues raised in the film. If AP wanted to commission a review or Op-Ed article, that would be fine. But instead the news agency has published a crude and inaccurate attack masquerading as a news story. Evidently this fact-checking article required its own fact-checker. Perhaps AP can now regain some credibility in this matter by publishing an apology.
Dinesh D'Souza, narrator and co-director of the film "2016," is author of the bestselling new book "Obama's America."
* Reached for comment by TheWrap, the Associated Press has not yet responded.
"2016 Obama's America" has grossed more than $20 million since opening eight weeks ago. It has already supplanted "Bully" as the year's leading documentary moneymaker.
It is on pace to top "Bowling for Columbine" ($21.6 million), "An Inconvenient Truth" ($24.1 million) and "Sicko" ($24.5 million) as the second-highest-grossing political documentary ever.
Michael Moore's 2004 film "Farenheit 9/11," which was highly critical of President George W. Bush, is No. 1. It took in $119 million domestically and $222 million at the worldwide box office.
_______________________________________________
TAMPA (The Borowitz Report)—On the opening night of the 2012 Republican National Convention, the Presidential nominee Mitt Romney received fulsome praise for being a “regular, down-to-earth guy” from his wife, Ann, whose dressage horse, Rafalca, competed in the London Olympics.
“Mitt has never let his success go to his head,” Mrs. Romney said. “Take away the seven-thousand-square-foot house in La Jolla and the bank account in the Caymans, he’s still the same fun-loving boy who pinned a gay kid to the ground and cut off his hair.”
Mrs. Romney adopted an intimate tone as she attempted to describe “the Mitt only I know.”
“Every now and then, Mitt will give me this devilish smile of his, and I know that can only mean one thing,” she said, flushing slightly. “He just fired someone.”
In a small flub that many delegates found endearing, Mrs. Romney said, “Mitt Romney is like you or me—he puts his pants on one leg at a time. Oh, wait. He has a fellow who does that for him. My bad.”
But the nominee’s wife brought the convention audience to its feet with her closing endorsement of her husband: “I promise you that if you elect Mitt President of the United States, he will never give less than thirteen per cent.”
Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox for free by clicking here.
“Mitt has never let his success go to his head,” Mrs. Romney said. “Take away the seven-thousand-square-foot house in La Jolla and the bank account in the Caymans, he’s still the same fun-loving boy who pinned a gay kid to the ground and cut off his hair.”
Mrs. Romney adopted an intimate tone as she attempted to describe “the Mitt only I know.”
“Every now and then, Mitt will give me this devilish smile of his, and I know that can only mean one thing,” she said, flushing slightly. “He just fired someone.”
In a small flub that many delegates found endearing, Mrs. Romney said, “Mitt Romney is like you or me—he puts his pants on one leg at a time. Oh, wait. He has a fellow who does that for him. My bad.”
But the nominee’s wife brought the convention audience to its feet with her closing endorsement of her husband: “I promise you that if you elect Mitt President of the United States, he will never give less than thirteen per cent.”
Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox for free by clicking here.
