What Major Retailer Just Stripped Dinesh D’Souza’s Latest Book From Its Shelves?

“I look forward to getting to the bottom of this…”

Just days after his most recent film, America, opened in theaters nationwide, WorldNetDaily reported that Costco sent word to all of its stores to remove conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s latest book.

The book, which has the same title as the film, is meant to give audiences a different perspective of the same topic, D’Souza said in a recent interview with Western Journalism. Both projects call into question the motivation of leftists who contend that America is an inherently evil force in the world.

In a statement to WND, D’Souza expressed alarm at the reports of Costco’s decision to stop selling his book, which reached the top spot in Amazon’s list of political commentaries.

“If true, this would be very odd,” he said, asserting that he is “in the process of finding out what’s happening.”

Less than a month after its release, the retail giant issued an order that all copies of the book be removed from shelves by July 15. When contacted by WND, most locations had already complied.

“I look forward to getting to the bottom of this,” D’Souza said, “and continuing the strong relationship my publisher and I have always had with Costco and their millions of shoppers.”

Costco’s friendly association with Barack Obama – a frequent target of D’Souza’s work – is common knowledge. Then-CEO James Sinegal addressed the Democratic National Convention in 2012, and the company donated a total of $200,000 to Obama’s campaign and an affiliated political action committee.

Obama held a fundraiser at Sinegal’s home and suggested that Costco’s story “is representative of what America is all about.”

This report comes on the heels of a Washington Examiner report criticizing the New York Times for artificially keeping D’Souza’s book off of its venerable bestsellers’ list during the month of June. Judging by sales, the book would have reportedly achieved a ranking as high as number 8 that week.

D’Souza explained that a position on the list is a big boost to sales.

He concluded that while the Times has the prerogative “to rig their list anyway they like,” he said that “if they are doing it, people should know.”

[H/T Western Journalism]

Dinesh D’Souza’s dire warning: Americans ‘are being prepared for a political and financial shakedown’

In connection with the release of his new book “America: Imagine a World Without Her,” The Blaze conducted an interview with bestselling conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

In the interview, they covered such topics as the left’s disingenuous championing of the “little guy,” the twisted historical narrative being taught in schools today, illegal immigration, the man who shaped the dastardly tactics of both the current…and if the left gets their way, future president, D’Souza’s upcoming movie and much more.

The transcript from their interview, conducted via phone, can be found below. The interview has been modified for clarity and links.

In your book, you take on the left on their own terms, focusing on those at the bottom of society, or as the left describes it, looking at “history from below.” Why did you choose to go that route?

“I’m willing to argue that the left is actually attacking ordinary people.”

D’Souza: The left is very successful at appealing to the principle of justice, and justice for the man lowest down. Sometimes, as conservatives, we miss the force of that. We reply by chanting “Liberty!” But we have to remember that justice is a key principle. Right, the Pledge of Allegiance: “With liberty and justice for all.” So we can’t ignore justice, and what I do in the book and film is to engage the left on its own terms. I go “Ok, let’s really look at whether or not America has been good for the common man.” Forget about the rich guy, he’s going to do well everywhere. Let’s judge a society by the kind of life it makes available to the ordinary fellow. So I’m willing to argue that the left is actually attacking ordinary people.

Let me give an example of what I mean. The left says that the wealth of America is stolen. So here’s the first question: Who stole it? Was it the one percent? Now if we look at American history, who are the people who moved West and displaced the Indians? The immigrants. Who are the people who benefited from slavery? Well everybody who bought a cotton shirt. Who are the people who defeated the Mexicans in the Mexican War? Ordinary immigrants and settlers.

So the point is that the critique of America is not one that is aimed at wealthy aristocrats who had beautiful cottages or mansions on the East Coast. The progressive critique is an attack on the immigrants themselves – it’s an attack on people like me. And so, what I’m doing here is making a defense of the ordinary American against these malicious charges that are leveled by the left, which are untrue and the prelude to shaking us down economically.

You frame that thesis, ironically enough, around two Frenchmen, Alexis de Tocqueville and Michel Foucault. Can you expound upon the dichotomy represented by these two men — and the “spirit of 1776″ versus that of 1968?

America: Imagine a World without Her

D’Souza: Yeah, we see the “spirit of 1776″ and 1968 by looking at two French guys, both of whom came to America at very different times. Tocqueville came in the early 19th century, and what he saw was the American founding principles in action, basically half a century after they had been put into effect. And what Tocqueville noticed was that America was a very entrepreneurial society, America was a society where people rely very little on the government, and America is a society deeply infused with Christian values. So Tocqueville saw, if you will, conservative America. Now, fast-forward 150 years when Michel Foucault came to America in the 1970s. And what he liked about America – he, like Tocqueville, grew to love America — but he loved America because he saw America as a mecca of gay liberation. The things that Tocqueville saw about America, like its entrepreneurship or its Christianity, Foucault hated. He hated that America. But what he liked is a different America, that he saw in the Castro district of San Francisco, which he called “laboratories of sexual experimentation.” So these are really two different Americas. In Foucault, you get just a glimpse of a different kind of America that progressives might prefer to the principles of 1776.

In moving from the 1776 ethos to that of 1968, you speak to Saul Alinsky’s playbook. And one of the things you say, and something that I hadn’t seen elsewhere, is that Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” effectively are derived from the same playbook as that of the devil, which kind of explains why he dedicated “Rules for Radicals” to Satan. Can you expound upon that?

Satan, as drawn by Gustave Doré, in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. (Image Source: Wikipedia)

 

D’Souza: Well, something strange is going on here because Alinsky was obviously not a Christian; in fact, he was an atheist. So why would an atheist dedicate a book to Lucifer? I think to discover the answer, you have to pay careful attention to what Lucifer represents in the Western tradition. So I did a close reading of Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” and you begin to see how Lucifer operates. First of all, Lucifer is a master of organizing resentment, and so is Alinsky. Lucifer is also a master at making G-d the bad guy. So even though Lucifer rebels against G-d, even though G-d justly expels Lucifer from Heaven, Lucifer goes, “G-d, you’re a tyrant. I don’t have to follow you. I want my own kingdom.” So Lucifer practices, you may say, demonization against G-d. And finally, Lucifer is a liar. He is a master of dishonesty and deceit.

Now, Alinsky adopted these Luciferian techniques, and so, for example, Alinsky openly advocates deceit. He tells the radicals of the ‘60s, “You know you people are middle class, but you hate the middle class, you hate middle class values, and that’s very good. But what you should do is pretend to be a friend of the middle class, pass yourself off as middle class, and use your position in the middle class to rub raw the sores of discontent. Try to radicalize the middle class by feigning or pretending to share their values.” And I think here, we begin to see the Obama and even the Hillary playbook, which is to say the ways in which Hillary and Obama both started out as Bohemians or Hippies, and then quickly adopted the Alinsky-ite approach of as Alinsky says “dressing square:” Seeming very respectable, being very self-disciplined, and ultimately pretending to be a friend of the middle class, whose values you are trying to undermine.

Pages: 1 2 3

Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘America’ warns Hillary Clinton will ‘finish off’ the country

In his highly anticipated new book and movie “America,” conservative author Dinesh D’Souza is warning that Hillary Clinton won’t be a clone of her moderate husband, but will instead take the baton from President Obama to continue radicalizing the country and “undo the nation’s founding ideals.”

“America — Imagine a World Without Her,” published by Regnery and set for release Monday, charges that as students of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama and Clinton could have enough time to “unmake and then remake America” into a nation the founding fathers wouldn’t recognize.

“They may not be responsible for the suicide of America, but they certainly will have helped to finish off a certain way of life in America, and they will leave us with a country unrecognizable not only to Washington and Jefferson but also to those of us who grew up in the 20th century,” wrote D’Souza.

“If they succeed, there may be no going back. Then it will be their America, not ours, and we will be a people bereft of a country, with no place to go,” he adds on page 87.

“America” is D’Souza’s latest book and movie on how he sees progressive politics hurting the nation. He also created the movie “2016: Obama’s America,” which was the second highest-grossing political documentary.

An advance copy of the book provided to Secrets suggests that progressives aim to remake the nation into one that is less powerful, less wealthy and less influential. If that happens, he warns, “We have committed national suicide.”

He focuses on Obama’s and Clinton’s links to Alinsky in a chapter titled “The Plan.” He claims the two followed the radical’s master plan that they hide their views and ideas until they get into power.

“If you see early pictures and video of Hillary, she looks and sounds like a former hippie. Overtime, however, Hillary started dressing like a respectable middle-class mother and speaking in a clipped, moderate sounding voice. Young Barack Obama, too, looked like a bit of a street thug — in his own words, he could have been Trayvon Martin. Over time, however, Obama started dressing impeccably and even practiced modulating his voice,” the popular author writes.

“Hillary and Obama have both learned the Alinsky lesson that your should aggressively pursue power while pretending to be motivated by altruism,” he added.

“More importantly, Hillary and Obama both adopted Alinsky’s strategic counsel to sound mainstream, even when you aren’t,” wrote D’Souza. “These are the ways in which our two Alinskyites make themselves palatable to the American middle class, which to this day has no idea how hostile Hillary and Obama are to middle-class values.

“If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job,” he wrote.

[H/T Washington Examiner]

‘Who’s the Real Crook?’: D’Souza Takes on Reid’s Harsh Rhetoric on Bundys

(Fox News Insider) – Conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza hit back at Nevada Sen. Harry Reid’s harsh rhetoric against embattled rancher Cliven Bundy and his supporters.

D’Souza spoke to Megyn Kelly from the scene of the “range war” controversy on the Bundy ranch.

Watch the latest video at video.insider.foxnews.com

Reid has dialed up his attacks on the Bundy family, claiming repeatedly that the Bundy patriarch “doesn’t pay his taxes.” The latest attacks from Reid come in the wake of the senator calling Bundy, his family and supporters “domestic terroristD’Souza told Kelly that the scene on the ranch was like something out of an old Western. “The real question is: Who’s the real crook? Who’s really fanning the flames and tensions?” D’Souza said.

“Terrorism is when you target innocent civilians, and when you call people ‘domestic terrorists,’ you’re almost implying that they should be targeted and killed,” D’Souza said.

“This is very inflammatory and, I think, irresponsible rhetoric from Harry Reid, and the people here are very angry about it.”

D’Souza told Kelly that small children on the ranch had taken to wearing name tags bearing the words “domestic terrorist” as a form of protest against Reid’s remarks, and pointed out the bizarre juxtaposition the name tags represent.

“When you look at an all-American kid with a ‘domestic terrorist’ sign, you begin to see the preposterousness of what is really going on here,” D’Souza said.

[H/T FoxNewsInsider]

Dinesh D’Souza Interviews… Barack Obama?

(Breitbart) – In a just-released web video entitled “Between Two Americas,” Dinesh D’Souza shines a satirical light on Obama’s recent appearance on Zach Galifinakis’s web series “Between Two Ferns,” in which the President pitched his fledgling Obamacare plan in an effort to reach the “cool.”

The video, although satire, is really an inventive piece of guerrilla marketing for D’Souza’s soon to be released new film, America.

As for the interview, you have to watch the video.

[H/T BreitbartNews]

Dinesh D’Souza: Wait Until President Obama Sees My New Film

(Brietbart) – Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, the director and co-writer of the highly successful documentary 2016: Obama’s America, told the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday that “after we did 2016, President Obama was very upset… If he was upset about that film, wait ’til he sees the new one.”

D’Souza’s new movie, America, produced by Oscar winner Gerald Molen and John Sullivan, will debut in July.

D’Souza was indicted for violating federal election laws in January by the Department of Justice. Many saw the move as pure political payback against an outspoken critic of President Obama. On Tuesday, D’Souza appeared in court with his attorney in New York City, who signaled his client was prepared to go to trial.

D’Souza’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman, told World magazine, “My guess is we’ll see you at the trial… There is not a scintilla of evidence that this was a corrupt endeavor by Mr. D’Souza.” The federal indictment was filed by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, “an Obama donor who was appointed by the President.”

D’Souza did not appear to be intimidated by his legal battle. “We are in a moment in America where we are facing a crisis of leadership,” D’Souza told the crowd. He added that “we need right now a Washington, a Lincoln, a Reagan. Well we don’t have them but we do have us.”

An immigrant to America from India, D’Souza recalled, “I was seventeen years old when I first set eyes on America… Even then I knew I could be the architect of my own destiny.”

“We are living in the American era, an era that began at the end of World War II, but this moment is very fragile,” D’Souza said, noting that America is facing challenges internationally in the rise of Islamic terrorism and Russian attempts to reconstruct its former empire.

“The remarkable thing is not what’s going on over there, but the response here,” D’Souza stated, claiming that President Obama is intentionally working to diminish America’s role in the world.

“It’s a great mistake to understand Obama as a mere amateur… The point about Obama is he is somebody who wants to shrink America’s footprint in the world,” D’Souza claimed. He added that “he [Obama] is a creature of ideology.”

Of his new documentary, D’Souza said “it’s a spectacular film… Underlying it is taking on the central argument of progressivism… This argument at its core is a moral indictment of America and the free market system… We make the moral case [in our movie] for America, for free markets, in a fresh way you haven’t heard before.”

D’Souza concluded his remarks by encouraging his audience to “resolve right here right now that liberty is our choice.”

[H/T Breitbart: Michael Patrick Leahy]

Unbelievable: Lead Prosecutor In Dinesh D’Souza Case Is Former Obama Donor

We can never underestimate the wretched behavior of a narcissist personality once they’ve feel like the world has delivered them an unwanted deal.  We’ve seen it played out all too many times; does anyone recall O.J. Simpson?

Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is the lead prosecutor in the case against filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.

The “2016: Obama’s America” filmmaker is accused of violating campaign finance laws and giving $20,000 to his friend’s failed Senate campaign. [H/T Western Journalism]

Dinesh D’Souza: Today’s U.S. Government Would Terrify Founders

Dinesh D’Souza — who made a documentary critical of Obama and has since been indicted for arranging excessive campaign contributions — says he is just one of many being penalized for criticizing Obama, and says the Founding Fathers would be terrified of what’s happening.

Dinesh D’Souza is a political commentator and author. D’Souza is a affiliated with a number of conservative organizations and publications, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution, and Policy Review.

D’Souza also served as a policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and, during 2010–2012, as president of The King’s College, a small Christian school in New York City.

[H/T Western Journalism]

D’Souza Responds to Indictment, Says He Got ‘Under President Obama’s Skin’ With Film

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza said on Friday night that he had “rattled” President Barack Obama with his popular “2016″ film and said that it remains to be seen whether a recent indictment against him for alleged campaign finance violations was a form of political payback.

In the interview with Fox News’ conservative personality Sean Hannity, D’Souza said he is “determined to continue” his work despite the indictment and that he is “undeterred and marching full speed ahead.”

When asked by Hannity if he felt like he was being targeted because he is a conservative, D’Souza did note that he is sure his movie got “under President Obama’s skin.”

“We know the film rattled him. We know the film upset him,” he added. “Whether this is a kind of payback remains to be seen.”

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=3134334677001&loc=theblaze.com

[H/T TheBlaze]

Bill Ayers: Constitution Needs to be Replaced, Unloads Controversial Opinion During Debate with Dinesh D’Souza

(WND) — HANOVER, N.H. – President Obama’s longtime buddy, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, Thursday night told debate opponent Dinesh D’Souza and an audience at Dartmouth College that the Constitution is an outmoded document and it ought to be changed.

Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were the main founders of the domestic terror group the Weather Underground, which was assigned responsibility for dozens of bombings aimed at destroying the defense and security infrastructure of the U.S.

D’Souza is the maker of the movie “2016: Obama’s America,” which is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all time.

It blasts Obama’s policies and actions, and warns America about what the nation would be under Obama’s vision for the United States.

See Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016: Obama’s America” and his books in the WNS Superstore.

The topic of the debate was “What’s so Great About America?”

Ayers previously called the Weather Underground “an American Red Army” and said the ideology was to: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home. Kill your parents.”

In his memoir, he wrote, “Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

In a 2001 interview with the New York Times, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Accompanying the article was a photograph of him stepping on an American flag.

Ayers also questioned ramifications for behavior Americans long have considered expected.

“If you are a felon, why do you get disqualified as a citizen and get denied your right to vote? Just because you’ve committed a crime?” he asked D’Souza.

D’Souza focused on another subject.

“What is happening to the American dream?” he asked.

“We [in the U.S.] are losing the secret of the American dream, but it is coming alive in countries like China, India and Brazil where the people have learned the secrets of wealth creation – making stuff other people really want to buy, and in the process [they are] taking over the global market. Global capitalism has been the greatest gift of America to the world. Social agitation has failed to deliver the goods,” he said.

D’Souza said, “What America has shown the world is the importance of wealth creation, not conquest. Our foreign policy can be summed up, ‘Trade with us, don’t bomb us.’”

Ayers asked the audience if members opposed slavery.

Getting an anticipated, “Yes,” Ayers argued a Howard Zinn theory of U.S. history insisting the Dartmouth audience would have been forced to oppose the Founding Fathers on the question of slavery – ignoring the history of the United States righting racial injustice since Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.

D’Souza countered Ayers on slavery by referring to Lincoln and arguing that starting with the Civil War, the history of the United States is a history of fighting to end slavery and establish racial equality.

In the cross-examination section of the loosely formatted debate, D’Souza asked, “You started your career in the bin Laden mode, but now you sound like a professor. What happened to the revolutionary? Did you lose your revolutionary zeal?”

The two then argued over the Holocaust, the question of the Gulf War and why no weapons of mass destruction were found when George H.W. Bush invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein.

“The U.S. always lies us into war,” Ayers insisted. “We fight wars in the Middle East for democracy, but we’re an empire, grabbing for resources, and the wars in the Middle East were about oil.”

On the subject of that Constitution, D’Souza said, “We act like there is a presumption in favor of the First Amendment and a heavy burden to be met defending the Second Amendment. I’m just saying, we should give the same respect to the Second Amendment as we give to the First Amendment.”

In questions and answers, Ayers pressed D’Souza to give a “full-throated support for queer rights.”

“I believe in the United States we are all a minority of one and we are each entitled to the full rights made available to us in the Bill of Rights,” D’Souza said.

Then he asked Ayers if he would support fully the rights of evangelical Christians to be recognized, to be protected from “derogatory comments from other citizens.”

D’Souza got strong applause countering Ayers.

“I submit that if you were a professor here before the tenure committee, the defender of queer theory would have every reason to expect to be promoted, while the evangelical Christian would have to hide his true views,” D’Souza challenged.

The focus on religion was one of the points that had staying power.

“I’m allowed to have my religious beliefs in private, but I’m not allowed to have them in the public square?” D’Souza asked.

“My point is that you can’t put a statue of Moses or Jesus in the public arena, that would be the government endorsing [religion],” Ayers said.

“But you have no problem with government removing all religious symbols from the public square and you don’t see that as government endorsing atheism or secularism?” D’Souza said. “I want the public square open to both Moses and the 10 Commandments and to Voltaire.”

“I think libertarians get it right in that they oppose government,” Ayers said.

D’Souza agreed. “I think whatever the government does, it does badly. But libertarians are inconsistent on the issue of foreign policy. Jefferson asked why should we be the only people who are free? I don’t believe in fighting wars to free other people, but I celebrated the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

Ayers attacked Obamacare not because of the lies that have surrounded it, its cancellation of coverage for millions, its high prices, deductibles and co-pays, or the fact consumers no longer will have their policies, their doctors, their medicines or their hospitals.

He called it “a very poor law” that amounts to corporate welfare, “giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the insurance industry.”

D’Souza supports Israel as a “little outpost of Western civilization,” and said that Iran is the legacy of Jimmy Carter who trashed U.S. support of the shah and left the world with the radical revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“We didn’t take Nelson Mandela off the terrorist list until 2006,” Ayers argued. “We didn’t support Nelson Mandela in the years when he was a freedom fighter.”

Ayers went from supporting Mandela as a radical terrorist in his early years to attacking Israel.

“Israel is an apartheid state and it is ridiculous the United States gives Israel the money the United States gives,” Ayers said. “Israel is a colonial power that has systematically pushed out the indigenous people.”

“American exceptionalism leaves us with a sense that we are the best and everybody should be like us?,” Ayers asked in his concluding statement. “Why would we argue we are the most important and that everybody else should fall down? It’s an arrogance that is not only foolish but also dangerous. We are rich with beauty and vicious in human denial – having championed slavery, supporting Israel, fighting wars in Iraq and the Middle East where we don’t belong. We should fight to stretch our imaginations to include all that there is. The situation where we are with education is catastrophic because we have constructed education like we are now constructing health care – as a market. Education is a right and education in a democracy is based on the incalculable value of everyone.”

In his concluding remarks, D’Souza argued, “America is the great defender of wealth creation. America created the great sense of possibility. All I’m saying is that we should realize we have a good formula and we should fight to widen the pie for everybody, not just to redistribute the pie.”

D’Souza’s film, “2016: Obama’s America,” is to be followed soon by a new project, called “America.”

His appearance has been overshadowed by the recent accusation from authorities that he donated more than the legal requirement to the 2006 campaign of Republican Wendy Long, who lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat in New York that had been vacated by Hillary Clinton.

The indictment charges D’Souza donated $20,000 to Long’s campaign by aggregating the money from various people and falsely reporting the source of the funds.

As WND reported, many of D’Souza’s defenders see the indictment as the administration exacting revenge over D’Souza’s film.

His new “America” is scheduled for release July 4, and it is predicted to become a thorn in Obama’s side because of the prosecution against D’Souza.

[H/T WND: Jerome Corsi]