Editor's Note: This is an exclusive excerpt from the first chapter of Dinesh D'Souza's new book, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party," which is being released July 18.
By Dinesh D'Souza
Advertisement - story continues below
To understand Hillary, we must solve the Hillary enigma. The Hillary enigma is why anyone – any American, any Democrat, even Bill – would consider voting for her. Yes, I know she's aiming to be the first woman president. But women across the country, in high positions and in low, are doing things, accomplishing things. This woman has been in public life for decades, and yet she has accomplished nothing.
In a classic case of nepotism, Hillary was appointed to head the National Task Force on Health Care Reform during Clinton's first term. The plan was so half-baked, and presented so poorly, that even Democrats shunned it and the whole scheme collapsed and had to be withdrawn.
Hillary served as U.S. senator from New York but did not propose a single important piece of legislation; her record is literally a blank slate. Despite traveling millions of miles as secretary of state, liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas admits that she "doesn’t have a single memorable policy or legislative accomplishment to her name."
Despite traveling millions of miles as secretary of state, Hillary negotiated no treaties, secured no agreements, prevented no conflicts – in short, she accomplished nothing.
Advertisement - story continues below
Lack of accomplishment is one thing; deceit is quite another. Everyone who has followed her career knows that Hillary is dishonest to the core, a "congenital liar" as columnist William Safire once put it. The writer Christopher Hitchens titled his book about the Clintons "No One Left to Lie To." Even Hollywood mogul David Geffen, an avid progressive, said a few years ago of the Clintons, "Everybody in politics lies but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."
She said her mother named her after the famed climber Sir Edmund Hillary, until someone pointed out that Hillary was born in 1947 and her "namesake" only became famous in 1953. On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary said she had attempted as a young woman to have applied to join the Marines but they wouldn't take her because she was a woman and wore glasses. In fact, Hillary at this stage of life detested the Marines and would never have wanted to join.
She also said a senior professor at Harvard Law School discouraged her from going there by saying, "We don't need any more women." If this incident actually occurred one might expect Hillary to have identified the professor. Certainly it would be interesting to get his side of the story. But she never has, suggesting it's another made-up episode.
'She claimed to know nothing about the Travelgate firings when the evidence showed she ordered them herself'
As First Lady, she claimed to know nothing about the Travelgate firings when the evidence showed she ordered them herself. Later, on the 2008 campaign trail, she repeatedly told a story about how she had been under sniper fire and ran for cover when her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia. Video footage, however, showed there was no sniper fire and in fact Hillary was greeted on the tarmac by a child who read her a poem. She blamed the Benghazi attacks on an Internet video when she knew that was a fable. This is a highly abbreviated list.
Advertisement - story continues below
She is more than just a liar; she and her husband Bill are corrupt and known to be corrupt, going back to their Arkansas days. Just prior to leaving the White House, the Clintons pardoned a notorious fugitive who had fled the country to escape prosecution on racketeering and tax fraud. Pardons don't come free – the man's family and friends poured millions of dollars into the Clinton coffers in exchange.
This was too much even for Hamilton Jordan – Jimmy Carter's chief of staff. Jordan said the Clintons "are not a couple but a business partnership." Every move they make is "part of their grand scheme to claw their way to the very top." Jordan dubbed the Clintons "the first grifters … a term used in the Great Depression to describe fast-talking con artists who roamed the countryside, always one step ahead of the law, moving on before they were held accountable for their schemes and half-truths."
The Wall Street Journal reports that during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state, some 60 companies that lobbied the State Department donated more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation. "At least 44 of those 60 companies also participated in philanthropic projects valued at $3.2 billion that were set up through a wing of the foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative."
In some cases, "donations came after Mrs. Clinton took action that helped a company. In other cases, the donation came first. In some instances, donations came before and after." In 2012, for example, Hillary lobbied the Algerian government to let GE build power plants in that country. A month later, GE gave between $500,000 and $1 million to the Foundation. The following September, GE got the contract.
Advertisement - story continues below
This is how Hillary conducts government policy.
'She is ruthless, she is grasping'
She is ruthless, she is grasping, she appears to have little empathy or concern for people. She is old, and mean, and even her laugh is a witch's cackle. There is almost nothing appealing about her. How, then, could she be the first choice of progressive Democrats and the apparent front-runner for winning the presidency in November 2016?
The Hillary enigma is very different than the Obama enigma. The enigma of Obama was: who is this guy? In 2008, Obama came out of nowhere. Very little was known about his past. What little was known was mostly camouflage. So there was an understandable appetite to learn about him. Moreover, Obama was intriguing; his story generated obvious interest.
As an immigrant, I was fascinated by Obama's background, his charisma, his objectives. I wrote two books, The Roots of Obama's Rage and Obama’s America, trying to explain Obama and predict what he would do. I predicted he was an anti-colonialist, in his father's image, and that he would seek to "remake America" by reducing its wealth and power. Many people, even many conservatives, were initially baffled by my interpretation of this strange man. Only now – eight years later – do most people see that I was largely correct.
With Hillary, however, there is no guesswork about her background, her personality or her ideology. We all know who this broad is. She has been part of our public life for a generation now. Not only are we all too familiar with her, we are sick of her. Even Democrats seem mildly nauseated; why else would so many of them turn to the Rip Van Winkle candidacy of Bernie Sanders?
Normally an out-of-it socialist who just woke up from a 20-year nap would not be a serious contender in the Democratic Party. Just yesterday Bernie was sleeping on his neighbor's couch, unable to pay his own rent. But just as Democrats in 2008 turned to Obama because they wanted anyone-but-another-Clinton, this year many have turned to Bernie because they want anyone-but-Hillary.
Yet enough Democrats voted for Hillary, and she received sufficiently robust backing from the Democratic and progressive establishment, that the success of her candidacy was never really in doubt. Even when Bernie got the votes, Hillary got the delegates. From the beginning, Bernie seemed to be running a "show" candidacy designed to fade at the appropriate moment and become part of the Hillary coronation pageant.
Hillary marched inexorably toward the nomination even while shunting aside the risks of an FBI investigation. While some Republicans have long suspected the FBI would recommend an indictment that would end her candidacy, Hillary has operated on the premise that the Obama Justice Department won't indict her – the Democratic party's front-runner – and Obama's presumptive successor. So far, she's proven right. Even in the unlikely event she is indicted, I expect her to slog on, with her trademark tenacity, hoping to deal with the problem after she wins the presidency.
'When is the last time a major political party nominated someone who has been investigated for corruption so many times?'
Yet when is the last time a major political party nominated someone who has been investigated for corruption so many times, and with an ongoing FBI inquiry? Nixon of course was impeached and resigned in disgrace but there was no investigation and no impeachment prior to his 1972 re-election. Nixon up to that point had a spotless record, while Hillary's record could only be described as very, very spotty. Yet she has a whole team rooting for her.
So the Hillary enigma is actually the enigma of her supporters – the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. That's why this book isn't just about Hillary; it is also about the party and ideological movement that propel her forward. I wrote about Obama as an individual because that is the best way to understand him; I'm writing about Hillary as the head of a movement or gang because that is the best way to understand her and what she represents.
I call this book about Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party the "secret history" because the story I tell is true and yet will come as a surprise. Did you know about the Democratic president who is the founder of modern progressivism – and also responsible for the revival of the Ku Klux Klan? What about the most popular Democratic president of the twentieth century – who blocked anti-lynching laws and for more than a decade cut deals with racists to exclude blacks from government programs? Then there is the president who is the hero of the Civil Rights Laws – the same fellow that called blacks "niggers" and said he wanted to keep them confined to the Democratic plantation.
Hillary places herself in this progressive tradition, and in a sense she belongs there. She's just as bad – actually worse – than her shameful predecessors. It's an eye-opening story. The facts told here, both about history and about Hillary's story, are indisputable and yet they are scarcely known to most people. Until I researched this book, I didn't know them myself. That’s because I'm a victim, as you are, of a progressive cover-up.
The cover-up is the work of progressives in education and the media. The progressives are part of the Democratic team; they are, in fact, the ideologues of the party. They have been given a very specific assignment: to bury the truth and spin a lie to sell their team's political merchandise. This they have assiduously and effectively carried out. Progressives can be counted on to respond with outrage to my findings, not because what I say is false, but rather because it is true.
Democrats – the progressive mantra goes – are the party of the common man, the ordinary guy. For two hundred years, Democrats have been looking out for the little guy, including historically marginalized groups like blacks, Hispanics, women and other minorities. Where would these people be without the Democratic Party to protect them and secure their basic rights? Democrats are the party of equal rights, civil rights, and human dignity.
Democrats – the mantra continues – support not only racial and social justice but also economic justice, in other words widely shared prosperity and Obama's "fair share." Economic justice is the centerpiece of Hillary's 2016 campaign. Why, she asks, should the fat cats – the top one percent – take the lion's share of the profits that accrue from American productivity? Why should they be permitted to cause so much inequality? In Hillary's view, government is the instrument that takes from those at the very top and redistributes to the rest of us.
Interestingly Democrats say they are not merely the party that did great things in the past; they are also the party of the future. That's why most Democrats like to be called "progressives"; the term links them with progress. At one time Democrats called themselves "liberals," until the term fell into disrepute. Progressive is now the preferred label. Voting for progressive Democrats, we will hear, assures that America's future will be better than America's past.
'The crazy bigoted uncle who has come out of the basement'
By contrast, Democrats insist, the Republican Party is the party of racism and reaction. The Democrats' prime exhibit is the GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. We hear that Trump is completely beyond the pale because he is a racist and a fascist. He represents the rotten core of the Republican Party, the crazy bigoted uncle who has come out of the basement and taken over the party, embarrassing the hosts who had attempted to keep him hidden away from sight.
Listen to progressive darling, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who tweeted recently that Trump "incites supporters to violence" and "built his campaign on racism, sexism and xenophobia." Warren added, "There's more enthusiasm for @realdonaldtrump among leaders of the KKK than leaders of the political party he now controls." Robert Reich, labor secretary under Bill Clinton, writes, "Viewing Donald Trump in light of the fascists of the first half of the twentieth century…helps explain what he is doing and how he is succeeding."
While Warren and Reich both suggest that Republicans are uncomfortable with their association with Trump, the broader Democratic indictment goes beyond Trump and extends to the GOP as a whole. Recently the Democratic National Committee sent out a fundraising email which branded Trump supporters as bigots and confederate sympathizers and insisted that "these are the values of the GOP."
In this book I expose this progressive narrative as a lie. In reality the Democratic Party is now what it has been from the beginning – the party of subjugation, oppression, exploitation, and theft. The Democrats are not the party of justice or equality, but rather, of systematic injustice and inequality. Far from championing the cause of women, blacks and other minorities, Democrats have historically brutalized, segregated, exploited and murdered the most vulnerable members of our society.
The Democrats are the party of slavery, and the inventors of the "positive good" school that held slavery is not merely good for the master but also for the slave. After slavery, the Democrats attempted to block the Thirteenth Amendment ending slavery, the Fourteenth Amendment granting equality of rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment securing for blacks the right to vote.
Democrats also invented and enforced segregation laws. A former delegate to the Democratic National Convention founded the Ku Klux Klan, which for decades served as the domestic terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, not just in the South but also in the Midwest and West. The Democrats also promoted forced sterilization and race-based exclusion of immigrants from this country.
During the 1930s, a young JFK went to Germany and praised the accomplishments of Adolf Hitler, noting that opposition to Hitler mainly came from jealousy. As president, FDR admired Mussolini and sent members of his brain trust to Italy to study fascist programs and import them to America. Mussolini for his part reviewed FDR's book for an Italian publication. He loved it. FDR, he concluded, was a fascist, just like Il Duce himself.
All of this has been buried by progressive scholars and pundits. Also concealed is that fact that during all this time, the main opposition to the horrors on the part of the Democratic Party came from Republicans. This book makes an astonishing claim: of all Americans, Republicans are the ones who have the least reason to feel guilt about slavery or racism.
From the beginning, Republicans have been the good guys, fighting to stop Democratic schemes of exploitation, murder and plunder. Republicans fought a great war, and hundreds of thousands of them died, to thwart the nefarious practices of the Democrats. Even after slavery, Republicans fought vigorously though not always successfully to defeat Democratic schemes of segregation and racial terrorism.
'Democrats are the ones who bitterly resisted the civil rights movement'
The bad guys – the Democrats – put up a great fight but the Republicans won in the end. It was Republicans who made possible the Civil Rights Laws that finally and belatedly secured equal rights for blacks and other minorities. Democrats are the ones who bitterly resisted the civil rights movement, and had the Democrats been the only party in America at the time, none of these laws, from the Civil Rights Act to the Voting Rights Act to the Fair Housing Bill, would have passed.
From the early nineteenth century through the 1930s, Democrats attempted various subjugation and larceny schemes, but during that period they remained the minority party nationwide. During the 1930s, progressive Democrats realized they needed a new and bigger scam. For two centuries they had oppressed and stolen from blacks and other minorities; now they had an idea for how to do it to the country as a whole.
The scheme works like this. Progressives supply the basic needs of poor blacks, creating for them a new plantation called the inner city. There blacks are provided with food, subsidized housing, medical care, and so on. In this regard, the new plantation functions pretty much like the old one, with a few modifications. Under slavery, this was rural paternalism; now it is urban paternalism. The slave-master is replaced by the government; i.e. the Big House of slavery is now replaced by the White House.
In both cases, it’s a meager living. But there is an important difference. Under slavery, blacks had to work; today's blacks don't have to work to inhabit the progressive plantation. In fact, they must not work, because if they become self-reliant, then the progressives have no future use for them. Consequently, many young blacks have productivity, creativity, even human dignity sapped out of them. This is the core of today's progressive racism.
Progressive racism is dedicated to uplifting poor blacks to a certain point and then keeping them there. The proof is that poor blacks today are about as poorly off as they were a half-century ago, when the progressive schemes of black uplift went into place. Every other ethnic group in America has dramatically improved its life except this one. Blacks have delivered for progressives, but they haven't progressed very much themselves. This, I suggest, is by progressive design.
Several years ago the black pastor and activist Eugene Rivers made the startling statement that today's young black males in the inner city are worse off than slaves. Rivers' point was that at least slaves had skills like masonry, carpentry and agricultural skills that made them useful; today's inner-city black males don't have any skills at all. They have truly become useless people.
Actually the Democrats have made them that way. That's because these inner-city blacks, though useless in the traditional sense, are useful to the Democratic Party – first, as voters, and second, as public exhibitions of the need for progressive redistribution programs. Under Democratic supervision, blacks in the inner city must remain poor, because their poverty is required to support and justify the progressive scheme. In this sense the 'hood is an invention of the Democratic Party.
Progressive Democrats are fiercely protective of these dilapidated, crime-ridden neighborhoods. That's why progressives mount fierce opposition whenever some reformer proposes to give poor black parents a choice of sending their children to private or public schools. Here the fear is that poor black children may actually get a good education, and that would liberate them from dependency on the Democratic Party.
Progressive Democrats also fought welfare reform every step of the way. They were outraged at the idea that single mothers with illegitimate children should be required to work. The progressive scheme is to increase their benefits every time they produce a new child. That child, to Democrats, represents a future Democratic voter. Progressives do not want to change this system of intergenerational dependency that has been working for them politically. In this way Margaret Sanger's "unwanted" people become "wanted" as inhabitants of the progressive plantation.
Finally, progressives scream every time entrepreneurs attempt gentrification schemes in cities like Baltimore, Detroit and St. Louis. No matter that gentrification would bring new money, new jobs, and new people into the inner city. Crime would go down, and people could move up. Here progressive opposition is most revealing of all. A transformation of the inner-city is precisely what progressives do not want to happen.
'The Democratic establishment works to assure that no one gets off the plantation'
So progressives talk incessantly about black uplift but no uplift actually occurs, even though black neighborhoods are all run by Democratic officials, from mayors to school superintendents. In fact, the Democratic establishment works to assure that no one gets off the plantation.
Indeed, Democrats are working overtime to create new Hispanic plantations. Long-term, they would like to have some Asian American plantations also. Democrats have created a plantation model for blacks that they hope can be applied to other minority groups as well. In that case, black suffering would extend more broadly to minority suffering, a real political success from the Democrats' perspective.
Why? Because minority suffering is the basic moral justification for the progressive Democratic rip-off. If there were no minority suffering, then where is the need for all the social welfare programs? The suffering of blacks and other minorities has actually been caused by the Democrats themselves, but in a crafty rhetorical move, this suffering is now blamed on "America."
And here we get to the central thrust of progressive education, which is to fault America with the crimes of the Democratic Party. Here's a choice example from Michael Omi and Howard Winant: "The broad sweep of U.S. history is characterized not by racial democracy but by racial despotism, not by trajectories of reform but by implacable denial of political rights, dehumanization, extreme exploitation, and policies of minority extirpation."
Well, who exactly did these things? Omi and Winant refuse to point the finger at the Democratic Party. From their point of view, "America" did this to the blacks and other minorities, and in recompense, America owes them. For Hispanics, this means a right of free entry and a right of amnesty for illegals; for blacks, it means that government owes you a living into the indefinite future.
So Democrats propose greater government – which is to say, Democratic – control over private industry and over the private wealth of this country, all in the name of advancing racial unification and social justice. Democrats justify their programs as the sine qua non of fighting racism and advancing civil rights, and define any opposition to those programs as opposition to civil rights itself and resurgent racism.
Incredibly Republicans – who are the party of emancipation and equal rights and civil rights – are now portrayed as the enemies of blacks and other minorities, while Democrats with a straight face present themselves as the party of anti-racism. The people who have been fighting bigotry for two centuries have somehow become the new bigots. Meanwhile the very people who had long poisoned the wells then showed up claiming to be the water commissioner.
Poor blacks, we will see, have become the pawns and suckers of this scheme. And subsequently progressives have attempted, with mixed success, to draw in Hispanics and other ethnic minorities as well. Their larger plan to enslave the whole country. It's the greatest progressive rip-off in American history. If this scheme is successful, future historians may describe the history of the Democratic Party as a movement from slavery to enslavement.
Slavery and enslavement are two distinct, though related, things. Slavery represents a specific condition: the slave is quite literally owned by his master. Enslavement is a process: people are enslaved to the degree that they are deprived of their rights and the fruit of their labor. The ultimate endpoint of enslavement is slavery, but there are many points of serfdom and servitude in between.
In this book I will show how Democrats went from slavery for blacks to enslavement for the whole population. Even those who benefit from the progressive state become dependent on it and remain captive to their progressive benefactors. Meanwhile, the rest of us are forced, intimidated and terrorized into forking over our earnings and possessions so that progressives can dispose of them as they see fit. In sum, progressive Democrats have gone from exploiting blacks to exploiting everyone.
Enslaving the population: this is what Obama and Hillary mean by the "remaking" of America. They want to remake America into a society in which progressive Democrats control the entire wealth of the country, and citizens become serfs of the progressive Democratic state. In such a society all our major decisions are regulated and controlled by the progressives. Their goal is to own us – our property, our lives, even our dreams – and to a considerable degree, they already do.
Bill Clinton, Obama 'small-time hoods in comparison to Hillary'
Hillary is the worst of the lot; she is the dark id of the Democratic Party. Her husband Bill is as crooked as they come, but his venality is circumscribed by his ambitions, which are mostly personal: to be lionized, attended to, and have his private parts regularly serviced. Obama too is lawless, but his is a lawlessness of means rather than ends. Obama will bend the law when it suits his purposes but his purposes are mainly ideological, to reduce America’s wealth and power.
These two are small-time hoods in comparison to Hillary. Obama is capable of gangsterism but it doesn't define him; neither does it define Bill; but it does define Hillary. For Hillary, gangsterism is not merely a matter of means; it is also her end. Hillary wants to be the crime boss of America. That is the only way to satisfy her unquenchable desire for money, power and social control.
As we will see in this book, Hillary is a criminal who found the criminal practices of Saul Alinsky to be too weak-kneed for her taste, and Alinsky was a gangster who found the criminal practices of the Al Capone gang to be a tad sentimental. In short, Hillary is the true Democrat, the gangster par excellence.
I suspect this is why the Democratic establishment lined up so quickly behind her. While the Republicans had a real primary, hotly contested, the Democrats had a primary in which Bernie seemed to win again and again but never seemed to make a dent in Hillary's lead. That's because the Democratic super-delegates were uniformly in her camp, even though there was throughout the campaign the risk that she would be indicted.
Why? Because the Democratic establishment recognizes that they need a thuggish enforcer, and Hillary fits the bill. Hillary is, in this respect, more promising than Obama. One of the progressive Democrats' main complaints is that Obama has not been a sufficiently skilled looter. He did pull off one big job, Obamacare, but other than that he's been mainly talk, talk, talk. Democrats are hoping that Hillary will be less talk and all action. I suspect they are right.
To a degree that Bill would hardly dream and that is unmatched by Obama, Hillary seeks to establish full government – which is to say progressive – control over the lives of Americans. She seeks, in her own words, the "remaking of the American way of politics, government, indeed life." Obama wanted to remake America; this woman wants to remake your life.
She intends, in other words, to relocate you to the progressive plantation. There is only one way to do this: convert all of America into a plantation. This means reducing the whole country to the miserable condition that we now see only in inner cities and on native Indian reservations. For Hillary, this would represent the summit of her achievement, because it would give her what she seeks: full power and full control.
Of course it's not just about the power; it is also about the money. Here Hillary has already shown her talents. Her achievement as secretary of state has been to carry the corrupt operations of the Democratic Party to a new level. Hillary herself described what she did as "commercial diplomacy."
It certainly has worked out commercially for her and Bill. In the words of Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, "No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office."
By contrast with the Clintons, earlier Democratic scam operations seem like petty thievery. Previously Democrats specialized in big city machines a la Tammany Hall in New York and the Daley machine in Chicago. These were local rackets that looted the city treasury. The looters – such figures as William "Boss" Tweed – made off with a few hundred thousand, perhaps as much as a million. Hillary, however, figured out how to take her racket national, indeed global.
Never before has anyone figured out how to rent out American foreign policy, how to convert the position of secretary of state into a personal money machine. Hillary, with Bill's help, figured out not only how to shake down Russian oligarchs and Canadian billionaires by offering them control of America's uranium assets; she also figured out how to rob the island nation of Haiti in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. It's one thing to rip off the world's rich; it takes a special kind of chutzpah to steal from the poorest of the poor.
'Imagine what Hillary would do with her power if she went ... to president'
Imagine what Hillary would do with her power if she went from secretary of state to president of the United States! Previously she at least had to answer to Obama; now she would be a power unto herself. Hillary has already shown how indifferent she is to the interests of the United States, selling American influence to the highest bidder. I dread to think how much havoc – how many Benghazis – are in store if we elect this woman in November.
Who is going to stop Hillary, and how? Who will block the enslavement of the American people that is the political program of the Democratic Party? The situation, at first glance, seems desperate. The Republican Party seems confused, bitterly divided, unable to contest the Democratic social justice pitch and articulate a rival vision. Can we really count on the bewildered elephant to chase down and trample the Democratic donkey?
There is no one else. The GOP has, from the beginning, been the team – and the only team – that can stop and did stop the marauding Democrats. The Republicans have done it for 150 years, from slavery through the Ku Klux Klan through eugenics and forced sterilization through the civil rights movement. Why don't we have slavery today? How has the Klan gone from a massive organization to a joke? Why do blacks and other minorities today have equality of rights under the law? The answer in every case is: The Republican Party.
Republicans can come together and do it again. While the threat is real and this will be a tough election, there is no cause for dispiritedness. With clear thinking, political creativity, and simple hard work, we can meet the challenges that are before us, working together, as we must, because our nation's very future seems to be at stake.
The GOP nominee, Donald Trump, is both colorful and controversial, but this is not an election about Trump; it is an election about Hillary. She is the one who embodies the debased soul of the Democratic Party. And she is the corrupt, exasperating, tenacious, malign spirit looming over the United States in the fateful year of 2016. It's time – actually it's past time, but better late than never – for all good Americans to come together and perform an exorcism.