Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party

by Dinesh D'Souza

  Former Miss Arkansas Sally Miller says she’s been stalked and spied on so much that she now sleeps with a loaded semi-automatic to protect herself against Hillary’s goons. “There is a vengeful spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women,” she says. “Hillary is just one of those women.”26

  Paula Jones is also on the warpath against Hillary. “She’s such a liar. So two-faced. She don’t care nothing about women. Hillary is only out for herself. Well, she stood by her man, alright. He helps her. She helps him. And they are the perfect pair for committing all of this stuff and lies and cheating people. It’s a sickness, I think. On both parts.”27

  At first Juanita Broaddrick thought that Bill was solely responsible for raping her and then attempting to cover it up. But when Hillary came up and whispered in her ear, Broaddrick says, “What really went through my mind at that time is, ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.’”

  Today Broaddrick continues to rail against Hillary with the fury of a woman who recognizes her real enemy—not just Bill, but also Hillary. “I think she has always known everything about him. I think they have this evil compact between the two of them that they each know what the other does and overlook it. And go right on. And cover one for the other.”28

  Willey writes of Hillary, “She has hurt so many people. She has disgraced so many women. She has demeaned us. She has terrorized us. What she has done is absolutely horrible. She has enabled her perverted husband to keep on doing it and that’s because she doesn’t care about women. She is the war on women.” Willey has pledged to follow Hillary around on the campaign trail to expose her viciousness and hypocrisy.29

  This eruption on the part of multiple women against the wife of the sex abuser is extremely rare. Victims typically only point the finger at the man who has violated them. In this case, however, the women all know that behind the man stands a woman who fully shares his culpability. I’m not even sure these women know the extent of Hillary’s culpability. They are, however, quite right to point the finger at her as much as at Bill.

  The relationship between Hillary and Bill is, in its sheer depravity and duplicity, uniquely odious in the annals of the presidency. Never before have two people with such low scruples ever reached the pinnacle of political power. Now Hillary the manipulator wants to abuse and victimize the country in the same way that she has been abusing and victimizing the women of Bill.

  CHAPTER 9

  PARTNERS IN CRIME

  HOW THE CLINTONS WENT FROM DEAD BROKE TO FILTHY RICH

  And the money kept rolling in from every side.

  —Song from the musical Evita

  The quotation above refers to the Juan and Evita Peron Foundation, established in 1948 by Evita Peron for the purpose of helping Argentina’s poor. Evita professed to be a champion of the campesinos—the wretched workers who lived in shanties on the outskirts of Buenos Aires—and they trusted Evita. She had, after all, risen up herself from poverty and obscurity. Her fame was the result of her marriage to the general who became the military leader of the country, Juan Peron. Long before the Clintons, Argentina had its own power couple that claimed to do good and ended up doing very well for themselves.

  There are, obviously, differences between the Clintons and the Perons. Despite her personal popularity, Evita remained an appendage of her husband, seeking but never obtaining political office. At one point, Evita had her eye on an official position, but the political establishment vigorously opposed her, and her husband never supported her in this effort. Hillary, by contrast, was elected senator and now, having deployed her husband on the campaign trail, seeks election to the nation’s highest office previously held by him.

  The Perons also had a foundation that took in millions of pesos—the equivalent of $200 million—from multiple foreign sources, Argentine businesses, as well as contributions from various individuals and civic groups. With its 14,000 employees, the foundation was better equipped and more influential than many agencies within the Argentinian government.

  Evita and her cronies were experts at shaking down anyone who wanted something from the government; donations became a kind of tax that opened up access to the Peron administration. Trade unions sent large contributions because they saw Evita and her husband as champions of their cause. In 1950, the government arranged that a portion of all lottery, movie, and casino revenues should go to the foundation.

  While the foundation made symbolic, highly publicized gestures of helping the poor, in reality only a fraction of the money went to the underprivileged. Most of it seems to have ended up in foreign bank accounts controlled by the Perons, who became hugely wealthy through their public office profiteering. When Evita died in 1954 and the foundation was shut down, Argentines discovered stashes of undistributed food and clothing. No one from the foundation had bothered to give it away, so it sat unused for years.

  Helping the poor, after all, wasn’t the real reason Evita set up her foundation. No, she had a different set of priorities. Like so many Third World potentates, the Perons used social justice and provision for the poor as a pretext to amass vast wealth for themselves. The Clintons have done the same thing in America; indeed, Hillary may be America’s version of Evita Peron.

  THE ULTIMATE PAYOFF

  This chapter is about the ultimate payoff of progressive politics—the chance to get virtually unlimited wealth and power. This payoff is what really motivates progressives. The motive, as we have seen, is camouflaged, because progressive Democrats typically claim to be championing some higher cause. From Andrew Jackson to Hillary Clinton, Democrats have long played Evita’s tune, insisting they are just looking out for the ordinary guy or the little guy. Somehow that little guy always remains where he is, however, while progressive elites advance to new heights of wealth and power.

  How do we know the progressives’ real motives? We know by checking out the bottom line. Bank accounts, in this respect, are quite revealing. As we saw with Jackson, his patriotism may not be in doubt, but when we examine his bank balance, we can be sure that he consistently looked after his own interests. Here we will see that, patriotism aside, Hillary Clinton is very much in the corrupt, self-serving Jackson tradition. She is also in the tradition of all the crooked Peronistas in the world who grow richer off their country’s wealth while they make their countries poorer.

  Once we understand Hillary as single-mindedly pursuing her own interest and financial gain, we can for the first time make sense of recent Clinton scandals. Consider the email scandal. What we know is that Hillary created and maintained an entirely private email server, insulated from her State Department requirements. This took great effort and required the collaboration of a whole team of aides as well as State Department bureaucrats.

  Why did Hillary do this? Her official explanation is convenience. Hillary simply wanted to get things done, and she was a little careless about how she went about doing them. She claims she got into all this trouble because she didn’t want to have to carry two phones.1

  But setting up a parallel email system is actually very inconvenient. Far from being careless, Hillary was careful to do it in a manner that would allow her to carry on private communications that would not show up on an official network, rendering the Freedom of Information Act useless. By doing this, in essence she stole the people’s property.

  Sending classified and secret information through a private network is not merely harmful to the national security; it is also illegal. Former CIA director John Deutch, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, and General David Petraeus were all punished for doing it. Their offenses pale before Hillary’s.

  Moreover, Hillary, in the middle of a government investigation, went through her private emails, deleting thousands of them that she didn’t want the government or the public to see. Normal people who do such things end up in prison. Hillary, clearly, sees herself as politically protected by the Obama gang. She acts like she’s above the la
w, and so far she has been proven correct.

  As a seasoned public official—one who has been in public life for decades now—Hillary at every stage knew what she was doing. Her actions, far from revealing the clumsy conduct of an amateur, show the confidence of a career criminal who knows where all the alarms are and how to avoid prosecution.

  Hillary had two purposes for foreign policy: to conduct the nation’s business, as she and the Obama administration saw it, and this is what her State Department network was for; and to conduct her own private business, as she saw fit, and this is what her private email network was for. In the end, Hillary’s interests seem consistently to have trumped the national interest.

  The Benghazi scandal puzzled many Americans because so many warnings had been sent to the State Department about the danger to American lives in and around the American diplomatic compound in the Libyan port city. Following the Obama administration’s acquiescence in the assassination of Qaddafi—an action cynically celebrated in Hillary’s phrase, “We came, we saw, he died”2—Libya devolved into a country controlled by marauding militias. One militia controls the airport, another the municipal offices, a third the main route out of town. Americans in Benghazi, from Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens to the ordinary CIA contractor—always knew they were in someone’s telescopic sights.

  So Benghazi was known to be dangerous. But what was Hillary’s real offense? Even critics of her action—or more precisely, inaction—in Benghazi fault her at most with shocking negligence. She seemed indifferent to the danger posed to American lives and insensitive when lives were actually lost. In classic Clinton fashion, she also tried to shift the blame from the terrorist perpetrators to an anti-Islamic video, which supposedly stirred up local sensibilities.

  As the House Benghazi hearings made clear, Hillary knew better. The very day of the attack, Hillary emailed her daughter Chelsea informing her that Americans had been killed in Benghazi “by an al Qaeda-like group.” She said the same thing that evening on the phone to Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf, and the following afternoon, in a phone call, she notified Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest.”3

  Yet if Hillary was lying to cover up an inconvenient situation, why did she find herself in an inconvenient situation to begin with? Why didn’t she pay attention to incoming calls and cables warning of the danger to American lives in Benghazi? This is the part of the Benghazi scandal that has gone unexplored. Hillary’s indifference is clear, but the motives for that indifference remain opaque.

  An important clue comes from where Hillary got the idea for the bogus Internet video story. She got it from one of her longtime confidants, Sidney Blumenthal. A former journalist, Blumenthal is known in Washington to be one of the shadiest figures this side of the Nile. The Obama administration vetoed Hillary’s petition to employ him at the State Department. So he went to work at the Clinton Foundation where he fed Hillary with “intelligence,” some of it aimed at fending off critics, some of it aimed at business opportunities for the Clintons.

  When Hillary received Blumenthal’s “intelligence” about the Internet video, she seems to have immediately seen its promising potential to mislead the public. So she ran with it. But this wasn’t Blumenthal’s only contribution to the Libya campaign. We also learn from Hillary’s secret emails—obtained from a Romanian hacker and published online—that Blumenthal was working to figure out how to obtain contracts for the rebuilding of Libya from the post-Qaddafi regime.

  So the plot thickens. Blumenthal, we learn, was specifically looking into the creation of homes, schools, and “floating hospitals” to take care of the war wounded. He worked with other Clinton cronies on this. One of them, Democratic fundraiser Bill White, told the New York Times, “We were thinking, Ok, Qaddafi is dead, or about to be, and there’s opportunities. We thought, let’s try to see who we know there.”4 As we saw in an earlier chapter with Haiti, the Hillary gang knew there was money to be made in Libya.

  Blumenthal’s memo to Hillary concerning business opportunities in Libya also reminds me of Andrew Jackson’s surveyor writing him about how much Jackson stood to benefit from the American Indian land that would become available once the Indians were evacuated. In much the same way, Blumenthal spotted a “silver lining” in Libya for the Hillary gang. Of course, the resettlement project would require the clearance of the U.S. government. Happily, the head of the agency in charge—the State Department—was Hillary herself.5

  So now the smoke begins to clear and we can better understand Hillary’s real objectives in Libya. She and her associates were busy with moneymaking schemes to profit from the chaos in Libya that Hillary had herself helped to create. This “commercial diplomacy,” to use Hillary’s own term, takes work, especially in treacherous territory like Libya. Hillary’s full attention was devoted to this self-serving enterprise.

  Making money in a war-torn country like Libya isn’t easy; it takes concentration and dedicated effort. So when the warning cables came in, Hillary couldn’t be bothered; all that, to her, was a nuisance. She wasn’t going to let violence and the safety of her employees get in the way of extracting money from a country in a precarious position. Hillary has always been a woman who stays on task.

  Hillary’s famous eruption “What difference does it make?” reflects her unique take on Benghazi. Her point is that nothing that happened to Ambassador Stevens or anyone else there made any difference to what she was trying to accomplish in Libya. Here Hillary can be compared to the bank robber who is interrupted because someone in the bank requires medical attention; from the thief’s point of view, this is a mere annoyance. What difference does it make? Can’t you see we’re trying to rob a bank here?

  Even Hillary’s fake “alibi” is revealing. Her bogus Internet video story wasn’t merely an effort to protect the Obama administration; she wanted to deflect attention away from her own private activities in Libya—activities that help to explain why she persuaded the U.S. government to intervene in Libya in the first place.

  Hillary’s enthusiasm for invading Libya—and Obama’s acquiescence in it—both remain questionable. Obama and Hillary insisted they had to prevent genocide in Libya, even though no genocide was taking place in Libya. There had been an uprising against Qaddafi, as part of the Arab Spring, which not surprisingly Qaddafi was trying to squash. A few hundred rebels and terrorists had been killed, but keeping this in context, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has killed tens of thousands to suppress armed resistance in that country. Yet Obama refuses to use the term genocide to describe Syrian atrocities and has not supported any efforts to kill Assad.

  Assad, let’s remember, is America’s adversary. He is also closely allied with Iran, another hostile nation. After the civil war, Assad also teamed up with Russia. Qaddafi, by contrast, was a bad guy who had been behaving himself because past administrations had effectively neutered him. After America got his attention with the invasion of Iraq, Qaddafi recanted terrorism, paid reparations to terrorist victims, agreed not to harbor terrorists, and cooperated with America’s campaign against Islamic militants. In addition, he exposed the sale of nuclear secrets by Pakistan’s A. Q. Khan.

  There was no rational reason for America to aid in the overthrow or assassination of Qaddafi. Yet Hillary pushed for it from the outset. The dictator himself could hardly believe that America would participate in a plot to get rid of him. Right until the end, his son Saif made frantic phone calls to the State Department offering peace and attempting to plead Qaddafi’s case. Neither Hillary nor anyone else would take his calls.6 It seems that she had her own reasons for wanting Qaddafi gone.

  Hillary was not merely involved in amassing rebuilding contracts for her buddies, just as she had done in Haiti. She was also reportedly involved in orchestrating the sale of confiscated Libyan weapons to the Syrian Free rebels who turned out to be terrorists in Syria. This occurred without
the knowledge of Congress and at the very time Obama declared his public opposition to the U.S. arming the Syrian opposition. What Obama knew of Hillary’s actions is unknown; what we do know is that whole stashes of high-grade weapons—including high-grade missiles—went missing in the aftermath of the Libya operation.7

  This is how these weapons deals go down. Hillary knew that, under the shelter of clandestine U.S. operations, there would be little or no public scrutiny of where the weapons ended up. The topic couldn’t be—and wasn’t—even raised in the Benghazi public hearings. Hillary intended for herself and her pals to prosper during the rebuilding efforts.

  There are some indications that the scheme went awry—the New York Times reported that Blumenthal’s Libya scheme fell apart in the aftermath of the chaos there—but no one apart from the people directly involved really know. What we do know is that Hillary contributed to the destruction of a whole country and that her associates planned to make money on it. Then she deleted the evidence of her actions. This is the real story behind Benghazi and the private email server.

  THE TAMMANY HALL DEMOCRATS

  Corruption in American politics is hardly new, of course, but previously, for the most part, it was conducted mainly on the local level. It was also conducted by Democrats. There were exceptions, of course, especially during Reconstruction, and in the administration of President Grant, and in the Teapot Dome scandal of the Harding administration.

  But generally, when we think of political corruption, we think of the Democratic Party machines in America’s big cities, of the city “bosses” using the political system to rig votes, install cronies in office, extort favors from businesses, collect bribes for the assignment of city contracts, and generally rip off the local taxpayer and loot the treasury.