Posted on 05/24/2014 7:53:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Dinesh D'Souza — the conservative scholar and documentary filmmaker who pleaded guilty to election fraud charges on the eve of his trial — insists he did not deceive diehard supporters who insisted on his innocence.
"From the beginning of this case when the prosecution and I appeared in court, I said that I did exceed the limits of the campaign finance laws,'' D'Souza told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"The case revolved really on … the issue of selective prosecution … Was [I] being selectively or excessively prosecuted for something that normally doesn't get this kind of treatment?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
RE: D’Souza isnt Italian
Actually it’s Portuguese.
Long before the British voyaged 6,000 miles to India and made it the jewel in the crown of their global empire, Portuguese sailors established a colony in India. As long ago as 1498 (just six years after Christopher Columbus landed in the New World thinking he had arrived in “India”), a Portuguese explorer named Vasco de Gama reached Calicut, a town on the Malabar coast in southwestern India. By 1505, Portugal founded the ‘Portuguese State of India’ as a viceroyalty of the Kingdom of Portugal. Francisco de Almeida, Portuguese India’s first viceroy, ruled from Cochin, now Kochi, in Kerala on India’s southwestern coast.
The Portuguese capital of India subsequently moved to Goa, hundreds of miles up the coast from Cochin. Over the next four centuries, Portugal controlled parts of India’s southwestern coast, a small segment of its vast global reach. Well into the twentieth century, after India gained independence from Britain, Portugal still controlled a number of settlements on India’s west coast, most prominently Goa. It was not until 1975 that Portugal fully relinquished its claims on any Indian territory (and only after the Indian government flexed its military muscles against Lisbon in 1961 when it seized Goa).
Portugal’s long presence in India led to the emergence of “Luso-Indians,” that is, people of mixed Indian and Portuguese descent, primarily the progeny of Portuguese men and local Indian women. In addition, Portugal sent many thousands of “Orfas del Rei” (young female orphans) to India, in order to marry them off to Portuguese men or to Indians of high social rank. But not all Indians with Portuguese surnames have European blood flowing in their veins. Many Indians, like the ancestors of Indian film starlet Freida Pinto, acquired European names only after converting to Catholicism.
So, to make a long story short, D’Souze was born of parents who came from Goa. Hence his Portuguese family name.
RE: If he intends to offer knowledge to the rest of us, he should have been smarter, himself.
If a Health teachers teaches his students about the dangers to your health when you smoke and actively discourages you from smoking and you found out that he smokes in private, does that invalidate what he taught?
Point is: the opposition often successfully uses personal flaws to attack principles.
D’Souza brought a lot on himself—purported shack up with a married honey before they were divorced.(see: http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/dinesh-dsouza-resigns-as-president-of-the-kings-college/)
I really like the guy, but he wasn’t really ready for big league baseball, much to my surprise.
I am not saying hypocrisy isn’t a factor to consider, but I personally look BEYOND that at the TRUTH or FALSITY of what the man espouses or says.
For instance, the truth or falsity of the claims of Jesus Christ really has nothing to do with Priests abusing children.
It stands and falls on its own.
No, but if you are the general public and don't know a lot about what he is presenting, this will make you skeptical and some will reject what is taught. What he has done and plead guilty too will be used to discredit his work and those who supported him. His audience was intended to be much broader than conservatives who often already knew what he showed. His film was intended to reach and persuade a much larger audience.
RE: No, but if you are the general public and don’t know a lot about what he is presenting, this will make you skeptical and some will reject what is taught.
Then I would suggest this says MORE about the public than D’Souza.
If the “public” will crucify a perfect man who lived His life consistently, then they will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of whether a man is telling the truth or a lie.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not endorsing what he did, but I am ATTACKING those who don’t want to use their heads.
And oh yeah, I still think the law is unconstitutional.
What he did might be illegal, but constitutionally, it is NOT WRONG.
This is no different than what Al Gore did with the Buddhist nuns in Los Angeles years ago. It was wrong then, and is wrong now. And by wrong I only mean illegal. As an individual, I should be permitted to give as much or as little as I like to any political candidate.
The more important question I want to ask is this ... why is there a law LIMITING individual contributions to a candidate to $5,000?"The case revolved really on … the issue of selective prosecution …
Isn't that in effect, limiting a person's right to free speech?
No, it is abridging “the freedom . . . of the press.” Even if a literal printing press is not involved, the principle of freedom of the press is freedom to use money to deploy technical means in an effort to propagate one’s religious, political (or any other type of) opinion.The technology is different than that of the founding era - but then, the framers of the Constitution intentionally promoted "the progress of science and useful arts.” So if freedom of broadcasting (or the Internet) is a problem, it takes another part of the Constitution - Article V - to address it.
All campaign finance regulation is unconstitutional. Including requirements for disclosure.
I was comparing D Souza with Corzine who’s name sounds “italian”.
Dinesh sounds very much “hindi” while Id never given much thought to where the name D’ Souza came from.
Thank you
Be the very same token, should the media not refer to Bill Clinton as Impeached President Bill Clinton?
Yes, I see your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.