Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (4 page)

We should take a moment to appreciate the political feat the Democrats have pulled off. Through a fantastic political and rhetorical legerdemain, they have turned the tables on their opponents. In a sense, they have done a new type of switch—they have switched
the blame
.

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—and this mirrors what recently happened in Flint, Michigan—the very people who had long poisoned the wells then showed up claiming to be the Committee for Clean Drinking Water.

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 is to enslave the whole country. It’s the greatest 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. This is their actual Big Switch.

Enslaving the population 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.

But how to pull off such a scam? In order to carry out their heist, progressives require the consent of a majority of Americans. This, after all, is democratic theft—theft that is ratified through the democratic process. So how to obtain that consent? Progressives need a pitch, and the best pitch is the idea of social justice.

I should take a moment to explain what I mean by a pitch. A pitch is the line that criminals use when they require the consent of their
victims. Imagine a gang that wants to rob an old lady and take her stuff. They could kick down the door, but it would be much easier for them if they could somehow convince the old lady to lift the latch. In that case they would only have to push their way in. So the pitch is the sweet talk the gang members use to convince the old lady to lift the latch.

I learned about the pitch in a federal confinement center where I spent eight months in overnight captivity for my sins against the Obama administration. My crime was exceeding the campaign finance laws by giving $20,000 over the campaign finance limit to a college pal of mine who was running for the U.S. Senate. I didn’t do it to get anything in return; I did it simply to help an old friend. For this, I found myself at the receiving end of the full force of the U.S. government.

But since no one in American history has been prosecuted—let alone incarcerated—for doing what I did, I should be allowed to suspect that my real crime was in exposing President Obama in my film
2016: Obama’s America
and my books
The Roots of Obama’s Rage
and
Obama’s America
. Obama hated my film, vituperatively attacking it on his website
barackobama.com
, and a few months later, the FBI was knocking on my door.

During my eight-month confinement, I got to know attempted murderers, drug smugglers, coyotes, armed robbers—the whole gamut of the criminal underclass. Here I learned how criminals think, how they organize themselves into gangs, how they recruit allies, how they come up with their pitches, and how they cover up their misdeeds. I realized there is a close similarity between these criminal operations and the longstanding practices of modern progressivism and the Democratic Party.

A GANGSTER
PAR EXCELLENCE

All this talk of criminals brings me to the main subject of this book, which is Hillary Clinton. So far it may seem like this has been all about progressivism and the Democratic Party, but Hillary is there from the beginning, she is present in every chapter, her spirit haunts the history
of her party because all the evil schemes of her party have, in a sense, become consolidated into her own career and life. Hillary is, in this respect, 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 profile. 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.

One of the original contributions of this book is to offer a new interpretation of that bizarre arrangement called the Clinton marriage. This marriage seems to be held together by a single cord: larceny. The Clintons have been on the make since their Arkansas days. They continued their vile operations through Bill’s presidency, which culminated in the pardoning of criminals who donated lavishly to the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

The Clinton marriage seems to affirm the Bonnie and Clyde principle that the couple that steals together, stays together. The famous criminal duo Bonnie and Clyde too had a complicated romantic relationship, perhaps just as twisted and bizarre as that of the Clintons. We may never know what the glue was that kept Bonnie and Clyde together, but what about the Clintons? What unites them and how did their partnership come about?

Here there are a couple of theories, both in my view mistaken. The first—occasionally whispered on the Right—is that Hillary is a lesbian. This would explain her apparent indifference to Bill’s carrying-on. Strangely the best source to confirm this suspicion is Bill himself. Two of Clinton’s former mistresses—former Miss Arkansas Sally Miller and Gennifer Flowers—have quoted Bill as saying that Hillary likes girls. Flowers somewhat colorfully cites Bill to the effect that Hillary “has probably eaten more p*ssy than I have.”
¹⁶

I have to confess that I cannot refute this theory, but I believe it is unsubstantiated. No woman has ever come forward saying she was even propositioned by Hillary, let alone had a relationship with her. Sometimes the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

The second theory is probably the most widely held view, certainly among Democrats but even among many Republicans. This is the view that Bill is the predator and Hillary is the long-suffering wife. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill spoke for many when she praised Hillary but said of Bill, “I don’t want my daughter near him.”
¹⁷
This view holds that Bill is the Big Creep—this is the term Monica Lewinsky used for him—and Hillary is the woman who sticks by the creep since she is married to him.

This second view is not entirely favorable to Hillary. At its worst, it depicts her as a kind of Camille Cosby, turning a blind eye to her husband’s atrocious predatory behavior toward other women. But even in this analysis the main blame falls on the husband. The two Bills are the ones who did it; the wives are merely guilty of putting up with all this bad behavior.

In reality, I show that the Cosby and Clinton situations are quite different. Bill may be a big creep but Hillary is creepier than he is. She is much worse than Camille Cosby. That’s because Camille, as far as we know, had no role in orchestrating her husband’s drugging of unsuspecting women. Camille is, at best, a passive enabler.

Hillary’s role can be understood when we realize that she is both aware of and involved in Bill’s crimes. She facilitates them because she benefits from them. How does she benefit? Hillary didn’t necessarily want a husband, but she needed a lifelong “pitch man” for her political schemes. Goofy, likeable, gregarious Bill was the perfect find. But why would someone like Bill want someone like Hillary? Not for sex. She couldn’t do it for him in the bedroom. Hillary knew that. If she wanted him, she had to make herself useful to him in other ways.

Hillary saw early on that Bill was a sex addict who could easily cross the line into sex abuse. In fact, there was already one incident at Oxford that suggested he had crossed that line. At first Hillary was appalled, but then she saw that in Bill’s addiction there was, for her, an opportunity.

So she became the active enabler of his sex crimes. She showed him she could cover up for him, and clean up his messes. She took on the task of prosecuting, discrediting, and destroying the women that spoke out against him. When necessary, she played the role of the supportive wife. She protected Bill from the consequence of his actions.

The arrangement has proven successful in that both Bill and Hillary have gotten out of it what they wanted. Bill found his co-conspirator who somehow managed to get him off every time, and Hillary got an addict who became dependent on her for life. Of course she never considered divorcing him because she needed him. Without her Slick Willie, she knew she had no hope of carrying out her nefarious ambitions. With
him, she now has a chance to live out her demented aspirations with all of us as her victims.

What are those aspirations? 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.”
¹⁸
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.”
¹⁹

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 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.