Dinesh D'Souza has been called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor’s Business Daily. The New York Times Magazine named Dinesh D'Souza one of America's most influential conservative thinkers. The World Affairs Council lists Dinesh D'Souza as one of the nation's 500 leading authorities on international issues. Newsweek cited Dinesh D'Souza as one of the country's most prominent Asian Americans.
Before joining the Hoover Institution, Dinesh D'Souza was the John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In 1987-88 Dinesh D'Souza served as senior policy analyst at the Reagan White House. From 1985 to 1987 Dinesh D'Souza was managing editor of Policy Review. Dinesh D'Souza graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.
We've reached a sad state in the West when we acquiesce in a hate-filled campaign to deny our Christian roots and heritage.
Listening to the fatuous Al Gore claim his undeserved Nobel Prize and maunder on about how America is ruining the planet makes me realize how fortunate America is to have as its president George W. Bush.
One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as "unbelievers" but this is not strictly accurate.
On Friday, November 30, I debated philosopher Daniel Dennett at Tufts University on the topic, "Is God a Man-Made Invention?" This was my third debate against a leading atheist.
Many people have uncritically accepted the idea that there is a longstanding war between science and religion. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.
Imagine if one of the world's leading Christians--say C.S. Lewis a generation ago, or Billy Graham now--were to reject his religious beliefs and become a atheist. It would be big news!
Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays.
How and why did the Berlin Wall come tumbling down? I want to argue that it was Reagan’s statesmanship that made possible this epochal event. Reagan didn’t, of course, do it alone. But without him it probably wouldn’t have happened.
Embarrassed at the murderous legacy of atheist Communist regimes in the twentieth century, leading atheists seek to even the score with believers by portraying Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime as theist and specifically Christian.
If we look at the history of Western civilization, we find that Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture. Does it make any sense to say that "religion poisons everything"?
It seems atheists have developed a comprehensive strategy to win the minds of the next generation.
On Monday, October 22 I’ll be debating Christopher Hitchens on “Is Religion the Problem?” It’s open to the public. It’s going to be a lively debate.
Instead of engaging this secular world, most Christians have taken the easy way out. They have retreated into a Christian subculture where they engage Christian concerns.
Imagine if the New York Times gave half-price ad space to the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. It would never happen, of course, but if it did, you can envision the left-wing clamor.
President Lee Bollinger of Columbia University is a very open-minded guy, in his own opinion.
Remove the Koranic references and exhortations to convert to Islam and Bin Laden sounds indistinguishable from Michael Moore.
As colleges start up again this week, there is big news from Boston College. The school has decided to censor my debate with its star professor Alan Wolfe.
In Christopher Hitchens’ wickedly iconoclastic book The Missionary Position, Mother Teresa is portrayed as a self-satisfied dogmatist who never entertained any doubts.
We are in an age of self-esteem, which is why only firstborns should read this article. It reports on new research that has found that the oldest child tends to be the smartest one in the family.
Ward Churchill is hopping mad that he's being fired from his tenured faculty position at the University of Colorado. He says he is not leaving. He has announced his decision to sue. The whole procedure, he insists, was a "farce" and a "fraud." Only in America, he believes, could he be treated in this way. I'm not sure why Churchill is so indignant. According to the logic of his original argument, he deserves his penalty--and worse. By his own account, he had it coming.