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

by Dinesh D'Souza

  Hillary’s entire tenure at the State Department seems to have been devoted to exchanging cash for favors. Microsoft gave her $1.3 million and, in exchange, she lobbied the Chinese on software piracy. Hillary convinced Russia to buy fifty Boeing 737s for $3.7 billion, and two months later Boeing gave $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. In appreciation for Hillary lobbying India to remove restrictions on large retail stores like Walmart, Walmart gave $1.2 million to the Clinton Foundation and has paid an additional $370,000 in membership fees.23

  Jeffrey Epstein gave $3.5 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2006, shortly after the FBI began investigating him for participating in the exploitation of teenage girls as sex slaves. Epstein’s standard practice was to fly celebrities on his plane to a private island near the U.S. Virgin Islands. The plane was nicknamed the Lolita Express and the island Orgy Island because both were venues for older men to have sex with underage girls.

  The case came to public light when one of the girls, Virginia Roberts—now thirty-two, but pimped out by Epstein starting at the age of fifteen—spoke out about Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Roberts named Bill Clinton as one of the regular travelers on the Lolita Express. Flight records show that Bill made twenty-six trips on Epstein’s jet—on at least five occasions ditching his Secret Service detail in order to avoid a record of his travel on the Secret Service logs.

  Epstein faced a long prison sentence, but somehow the investigation was concluded in 2008 with a secret settlement. Epstein pleaded guilty to one count of soliciting underage girls, for which he served a year in prison. All other charges were dropped, and all the records in the case were sealed. Only Swiss bank records leaked by a whistle-blower brought the secret settlement to public light. So far Hillary has not said a word about the case, even though she undoubtedly knows about it.24

  This is the level of sordid depravity that we can expect if Hillary is reelected and the Clintons are returned to the White House. Are we not done with this larcenous duo? Their criminal schemes were bad enough in Arkansas and during Bill Clinton’s two terms as president. They escalated during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state. How much these partners in crime have already stolen! Yet, from their perspective, there is a lot more to take, if only they get the opportunity to return to the White House.

  CHAPTER 10

  REPUBLICANS TO THE RESCUE

  STOPPING HILLARY’S AMERICA

  If not now, when? If not us, who?

  —Progressive slogan from the 1960s

  This is not an election about Donald Trump; it is an election about Hillary Clinton. The big question goes beyond the two candidates. It is: which gang are we going to put in power, the Republican gang or the Democratic gang? I believe I have shown that there is only one answer: the Republican gang.

  Why? It’s not because the Republicans necessarily deserve to rule. It’s not because they always know how to rule. The GOP can be exasperating. There’s a reason some people call it the Stupid Party. Even so, I’m a proud member of the Stupid Party because the alternative is the Evil Party.

  Politics is not an individual endeavor; it is a team activity. The Democrats led by Hillary are trying to steal America, and Republicans led by Trump are trying to stop this from happening. That’s the basis for my conclusion that every Republican—no matter who he is—is preferable to every Democrat.

  Look at who the Democrats are. For more than a century, this party focused its oppression on blacks and American Indians. The venue of this oppression was the slave plantation and the Indian reservation. The Democrats stole the land from the Indians, and the labor and lives of the blacks. In this era, one may say that the Democrats took everything from some people.

  Since the rise of progressivism in the 1930s, the Democrats shifted to a new strategy. As blacks moved to cities, Democrats re-created the plantation there. These urban plantations were built to accommodate not blacks but also poor immigrants. To the plantation, one might say, the Democrats added the immigrant ghetto and barrio. In all these places, poor people were kept from rising beyond a minimal level, and minority suffering was used to justify the expanding and increasingly confiscatory progressive state. So in this era, Democrats went from taking everything from some people to taking something from everyone.

  But now we are in a new era. The Hillary Democrats want to complete the stealing of America that has already come a long way in the Obama years. Progress toward the goal of complete seizure and complete control—this is what Democrats mean when they use the word “progressive.” These thugs have gone from taking everything from some people to taking something from everyone to—their final goal—taking everything from everyone.

  Once this happens, we have lost America, or to put it differently, we will all be serfs in Hillary’s America. The medieval serf typically turned over half his produce to the lord he served. Serfdom, in this sense, represents the midway point between freedom and slavery, because slavery means we have no claim whatever on what we produce.

  For Hillary, serfdom is not enough. The Hillary Democrats would not be satisfied with a marginal tax rate that topped out at 50 percent. They want full control over the wealth and productivity of America, which means full control over your wealth and the fruit of your labor. Essentially Hillary wants to take the historic Democratic rip-off scheme to its final limit. She wants to turn all of America into a plantation.

  How to stop Hillary’s America? There is only one way. To see why, let’s consider how previous incarnations of subjugation, exploitation, and theft have been stopped in this country. The British, of course, were the original culprits, ruling America from afar and slowly but systematically stealing wealth from this country. It took the American Founders—led by George Washington—to stop them.

  There was no Republican Party in 1776, but the Republican Party has, from its founding in 1854, been the custodian of the principles of the American Revolution. In fact, this is what it means to be a conservative in America today; we are conserving the ideals of the nation’s founding. So conservatives and Republicans are the inheritors of the founding legacy.

  A REVOLUTIONARY TRADITION

  There is, admittedly, an irony in this; American conservatism is distinct in that it protects not the ancien régime or tradition per se. Rather, it protects a revolutionary tradition. Moreover, this revolutionary tradition is the tradition of classical liberalism and involves three types of freedom: political freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of thought and religion.

  The Founders didn’t just care about freedom; they also cared about justice. For them, justice had two main components, the justice of economic allocation and the justice of rights. The justice of economic allocation is the justice of free market capitalism: the basic idea is that people should keep the fruits of their labor. The other main form of justice was equality of rights under the law. The Founders knew this second type of justice was betrayed by slavery; that’s why they set up institutions designed over time to get rid of that form of systematic theft.

  The contradiction between the principles of the Founders and the practice of American slavery came to a head two generations later, in the Civil War. In 1860, once again America’s core principles, and indeed America’s survival as a nation, were threatened. The threat came not from “the South.” The idea that the South is wholly to blame is a progressive canard. What the canard leaves out is what caused southern secession in the first place.

  Why does this matter? After all, it was the South, not the Democrats, who seceded. But the South seceded because its party, the Democratic Party, lost the election. Had the Democrats won, slavery would have been safe and the South would have remained within the union. The defeat of the pro-slavery party in 1860 caused the Civil War.

  Once the Civil War started, northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas panicked. They had coddled slavery but they had not expected to carve the nation itself in two. So the northern Democrats condemned secession and pledged fealty to Lincoln. But it was a false fe
alty; a powerful faction of Copperhead Democrats worked overtime to undermine Republican prospects for winning the war.

  The truth is that the Copperhead Democrats wanted Lincoln to lose the war. They wanted to make peace with the South so that slavery, if not extended, could at least be retained. The slogan of the Democratic Party in 1864 was to keep things just as they were before the war. In other words, restore the union but let the South have slavery.

  These grim facts make it clear that it was Lincoln’s reelection, and the success of Lincoln’s armies, that ultimately sealed the fate of slavery. So slavery was not ended by “the North” because the North was divided between Lincoln loyalists and Copperhead Democrats. Slavery was actually ended by the Republican Party.

  After losing the war, the Democrats could not restore slavery so they switched to enslavement. They carried out this enslavement through a series of horrific schemes aimed at blacks: the Black Codes, segregation, Jim Crow, and the domestic terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan.

  Republicans again fought back with Reconstruction, going to the extent of having military governors throughout the South to thwart the Democratic effort to suppress, disenfranchise, and murder blacks. The GOP measures were heavy-handed at times but a certain amount of heavy-handedness was necessary to deal with Democratic thuggery and exploitation.

  Republicans didn’t always win. They could not overturn segregation laws that were passed by Democratic legislatures, signed by Democratic governors, and enforced by Democratic sheriffs and other government officials. Republican anti-lynching bills were thwarted by one progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, and then by another progressive Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. Both were allied with some of the worst racists in America.

  Although GOP anti-lynching measures were defeated, the party did stop the Klan just a few years after its founding, at least until it was revived again by Democrats in the early twentieth century. Republicans also led the first civil rights revolution, which resulted in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as well as the three Civil War amendments: the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments.

  The Democrats de facto nullified these amendments, turning them into dead letters in the South and preventing blacks and other minorities from enjoying their rights for another three quarters of a century. But the GOP won in the end, even though it took a second civil rights revolution, almost a century later, to actually enforce the Civil War amendments.

  Ironically it was a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, who introduced the Civil Rights Act, but he did so out of low political motives. The main opposition came from his own party, not from the GOP. Indeed, without Republican pressure, and without Republican votes, LBJ would not have been able to sign, and likely would not have wanted to sign, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Bill.

  Contrary to progressive propaganda, the Democrats have, almost without interruption, proven to be the party of bigotry while the Republicans have a consistent record of opposition to bigotry. The Democrats are the party of subjugation and oppression while the Republicans are the party of equal rights and the level playing field. From slavery through modern progressivism, Democrats have always stolen the fruits of people’s labor while Republicans stood for letting people keep what they produce and earn.

  WHAT WENT WRONG?

  Why, then, has the GOP proven largely ineffective in the age of Obama and why does it seem to be in such trouble at the presidential level in 2016? What has happened to the party of Lincoln and Reagan? After eight disastrous, dispiriting years of Obama, the GOP should be the runaway favorite in November; yet this is not the case. I count three serious disadvantages facing the GOP in this election.

  First, the Democrats are highly motivated. This by the way is not unusual. All criminals are highly motivated. “Stealing is hard work,” one convict told me in the confinement center. The progressive Democrats know this. Stealing is how they make a living. So it’s a mistake to consider the progressives to be an indolent, do-nothing group. They are very industrious in conniving and carrying out designs on your wealth and your life.

  By contrast, the Republicans seem relatively listless. Even politically active Republicans appear to engage around election time, only to return to “normal life” when the votes are counted. I sometimes hear it’s because Republicans have jobs and because they don’t have as much at stake as the Democrats, many of whom depend on federal programs for their livelihood. But in reality Republicans have even more to lose than Democrats, because Republicans who lose elections become easy prey for the progressive Democratic state to go after their income and their wealth.

  Make no mistake, the progressives aren’t just about raising the top income tax rate a few percentage points. They want to return to the halcyon days in America where marginal tax rates topped out at 80 to 90 percent. That was the wartime rate under FDR during World War II. Moreover, Democrats want to take your wealth by establishing increasing state control over all you own and what you do. If this isn’t enough to motivate you, I’m not sure what is.

  The disproportion between Democratic and Republican seriousness and effort can be seen in the Supreme Court, which is also at stake in the 2016 election. Although the majority of court nominees are Republicans, the Supreme Court has been precariously balanced for a decade. Neither side has enjoyed a clear advantage.

  Why? Because Democrats can with almost Euclidean certitude count on their votes, while Republicans must keep their fingers crossed about more than one of their nominees. “Hope we get Kennedy this time! Whew, we got Kennedy. Oops, we lost Roberts.” This is the pathetic Republican predicament.

  Democrats are never in this predicament. Democratic justices on the court act like good Democrats and vote the party line, while Republicans seem to decide each case on its merits. While Republicans come to the court to perform constitutional rumination, Democrats come to the court to advance Democratic Party objectives.

  This disproportion of conviction and application leads me to the second advantage the progressive Democrats enjoy. Over the past generation, they have one by one taken over the most influential institutions of our culture. Here I am referring to Hollywood, Broadway, the music industry, the world of comedy, the mainstream media—both TV and print—higher education, and increasingly also elementary and secondary education.

  I call these the megaphones of our culture, because these are the ways that information is transmitted to the American people. Young people get their knowledge mainly from what they learn in school and college. Many of them today get their political information from comedians like Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, and Jon Stewart. All Americans are shaped by the music they listen to and by what their see on TV and in the movies.

  While conservative Republicans have been fighting in one corner of the battlefield—can we take the House and Senate? Will we win the presidency this time?—the Democrats have been occupying the high ground of the culture. Incredibly the Right has let this happen. To take one depressing example, in the sphere of comedy, they have Maher, Colbert, and Stewart and we have nobody, nobody, and nobody.

  Long-term, the GOP cannot win if it doesn’t take some of this ground back. This requires a serious commitment of funds and effort. This is not philanthropy or political contributions; this is survival money. Just as people who moved west and built homesteads had to invest in fences and gunslingers to protect them from hoodlums, conservatives and Republicans must recognize that not just America’s wealth is at stake here; their own livelihood is too.

  In the long run, it’s not enough to send speakers like me to college campuses or even to establish alternative educational institutions like Hillsdale College. I speak on a campus Monday and am gone by Tuesday, while the progressive faculty is there day after day, drumming their propaganda into the students. Conservative colleges like Hillsdale are islands of liberty in a sea of repression, but they offer no chance to alter the general landscape of higher education.


  Thirty years ago, the situation seemed hopeless. Then it seemed that conservatives would have to build three hundred new campuses to rival the ones that have been taken over by the progressives. Today, thanks to technology, we don’t have to do that. We do, however, have to build the academic iPhone. If we can figure out how to supply high-quality college education at a fraction of the cost, we can threaten—if not wipe out—the whole progressive infrastructure.

  Similarly, conservatives have to invest heavily in media and movies. This is why I shifted my career and went from being a writer, speaker, and think-tank guy to also making documentary films. I got the idea from Michael Moore, who made Fahrenheit 911 and dropped it in the middle of the 2004 election. I said, “If that guy can do it, how hard can it be?”

  Even so, I have no illusion that documentary films carry much weight in Hollywood. The big guy in Hollywood isn’t Michael Moore, it’s Steven Spielberg. The progressives in Hollywood convey their political messages not just through documentaries but also through romantic comedies, thrillers, horror films, and animated family films. Long term, we have to challenge their supremacy in these areas too.

  But in the short term, we have an election to win. How to win it? Here, I’m afraid, some Republicans have gone off track. They don’t seem to have learned the lessons of the past—the lessons of successful Republicans like Lincoln and Reagan. Lincoln was the most successful GOP leader of the nineteenth century, and Reagan of the twentieth. We shouldn’t blindly copy them, but we should learn from them.

  There is a reason why those men achieved so much and yet retained the allegiance of a majority of Americans while others—from Herbert Hoover to the two Bushes—bungled their chances, discredited the Republican brand, and aroused a popular reaction that elected FDR, Bill Clinton, and Obama.

  PRINCIPLE AND PRAGMATISM