How President Hillary would drive America 'stark, raving mad'

President Hillary: America's Nurse Ratched

David Kupelian on how Clintons would turn U.S. into insane asylum 

From: WND 

In the climactic scene of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," Billy Bibbit, a likable but painfully withdrawn young male patient in a mental institution, finally seems to be emerging from a lifetime of crippling anxiety, depression and suicide attempts, speaking boldly and without stuttering for the first time. 

As the other patients good-naturedly cheer Billy on, the cold and malevolent head administrator, Nurse Ratched - perversely threatened by Billy's new-found freedom and independence - manipulates him right back down into the depths of his mental dungeon. He pitifully sinks to the floor, stammering and screaming, as the guards drag him away.

Shortly thereafter, Billy commits suicide, slashing his own throat. 

As movie-goers (and readers of Ken Kesey's novel) well understand, Nurse Ratched is hands-down the craziest and most dangerous person in the whole "Cuckoo's Nest." 

 Today, as America increasingly resembles a sprawling insane asylum - with ever-growing numbers "identifying" as everything from socialist to jihadist to transgendered, with 50 million of us dependent on mind-altering psychiatric meds and another 25 million taking drugs illegally, suicide at a 30-year high, and addiction to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling and porn now a full-blown national health crisis - voters may soon be electing their very own national Nurse Ratched to run things, in the person of President Hillary Clinton. 

For years the news media both left and right - from Chris Matthews to Rush Limbaugh - have likened Hillary Clinton to Nurse Ratched, who was voted the fifth worst movie villain of all time by the American Film Institute.

Of course, in a broader context, one could reasonably call the whole Democratic Party "the Nurse Ratched party." As I document in "The Snapping of the American Mind," the political and cultural left is responsible for a huge amount of the horrendous national and personal brokenness in today's America. Yet ironically, the left holds itself out as the anointed leader, caretaker and problem-solver for the millions of dependent, dysfunctional people it has created.

Make no mistake, today's Democratic Party is untethered to reality: With ISIS crucifying children overseas and mass terrorism in the American homeland on everyone's mind, with U.S. joblessness through the roof in a disintegrating economy, with wide-open borders and absurdly reckless immigration and refugee policies transforming America in unthinkable ways, the Democrats' most urgent national issue seems to be making sure men are allowed to use women's bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. 

But what about the woman who may shortly become president? There are some obvious parallels to Kesey's fictional tyrant nurse: Hillary Clinton - from her days of vilifying the women victimized by her sex-predator husband, to her betrayal of brave Americans defending the U.S. special mission in Benghazi (and then lying to their grieving parents' faces about the cause of their deaths) - has been undeniably two-faced, cold, manipulative and obsessed with power. Still, is the whole Nurse Ratched comparison, and all it implies, really fair? And if so, what does it tell us about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would mean for our nation? 

Before we proceed, let's pause and bring to mind one profoundly important, though rarely discussed, aspect of the American presidency. 

 'Father of our country'

Every president of the United States, to a surprising degree, serves as "the father of our country" during his time in office. Simply put, the president affects the lives, hearts and souls of all Americans in deep and powerful ways - for better or worse. 

I am not speaking merely of the superficial "role model" effect of presidential first families - say, the fad of women copying Jacqueline Kennedy's hairdo during JFK's brief presidency. I'm referring to the kind of direct, penetrating, radiant effect a father has on his own family members, strongly influencing their personal development and character.

Thus, the weak and appeasing Jimmy Carter accomplished much more than just decimating the U.S. economy with sky-high inflation, interest and unemployment rates. He did more than inadvertently launch the modern Islamist movement by encouraging the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah of Iran and allowing the demonically insane Ayatollah Khomeini to replace him, an act that unleashed the theocratic Islamic revolution that has spread like a cancer ever since. No, I'm talking instead about the severe national anxiety disorder Carter caused in America. It spread throughout the populace - Carter himself dubbed it a national "crisis of confidence" in his controversial, nationally televised "malaise" speech - and gave birth to the 1970s survivalist movement of millions of Americans fearful their nation might not even survive the Carter years intact! 

Fortunately, America was granted a reprieve when in 1980 we overwhelmingly elected Ronald Reagan and it was "Morning in America." Reagan's sunny optimism and moral clarity were so dominant that the news media's hostility toward him couldn't prevent his landslide 1984 re-election. His easy confidence was accompanied by a masterful ability to deal with adversaries with strength and grace. Indeed, Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet empire without firing a shot, his presidency culminating in the almost-surreal dismantling of the Berlin Wall. 

Let me dwell on Reagan a moment longer, since his presidency profoundly affected my own life. I went from being a young man who had pretty much lost hope in his country during the Carter years to one who embraced renewed hope - in fact, launching my journalism career in 1982, early in Reagan's presidency. 

 As I wrote in "How Evil Works": 

I remember when I first realized Ronald Reagan was doing something extraordinary. It was March 23, 1983. I happened to be in Kmart's electronics section, in front of a whole bank of televisions, all tuned to the same channel. While I stood there, on came Ronald Reagan, who proceeded to deliver his historic speech announcing for the very first time his plan to build the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). 

I couldn't believe my ears. Here was a president who, for the first time in decades, talked about actually defending America - protecting it from a Soviet nuclear first strike. At that moment, hope for America was reborn in me, and in millions of others.

That's the "radiant" effect I'm talking about that presidents have on their countrymen - like sunshine has on all plant life below - like parents have on their young children. It goes far beyond policies, programs and appointments. Something about the president directly affects the inner life and well-being of every American.

Consider Bill Clinton. With the passage of time, many forget just how corrupt and scandal-plagued his presidency was, and unfortunately he exerted a powerful negative effect on millions of Americans - especially young people, the most impressionable segment of any population. For example, Clinton's Oval Office affair with a 22-year-old intern served to validate and even glorify the same immoral behavior for multitudes of young people, leading to a widely reported epidemic of sexual "hooking-up" in the nation's middle schools. Clinton's clear if unspoken message to the nation's youth was (and here you have to imagine Bill's hoarse Arkansas drawl): "If it's OK for the president, it's OK for you. Besides, it's not even sex!"

As for George W. Bush, whose presidency was defined by the 9/11 attacks eight months after he took office, he admirably pulled the nation together during one of its darkest periods and launched a needed counter-attack in Afghanistan - and yes, he did keep the homeland safe for the duration of his time in office. However, Bush's presidency became deeply and perpetually controversial when he led the nation into another war, this one in Iraq. Though that war was, in fact, won by 2008, Bush's successor, Barack Obama, disastrously ignored every military adviser and refused to leave the required stay-behind force, leading directly to the formation of ISIS and the appalling worldwide jihad rampage now unfolding. Though Bush was a flawed president and is demonized by many, one of his enduring legacies, at least insofar as the popular attitudes he encouraged in Americans, is that he genuinely loved his country and genuinely loved America's military members. They knew it and felt it - a welcome change from Bill Clinton, who in his earlier years admitted, and I quote, to "loathing the military."

"Loathing." That's actually a perfect word to cue in the presidency of Barack Obama. For Obama secretly loathes not just the military, but America herself, as well as capitalism, the Constitution, Christianity and pretty much the rest of America's core values and institutions. Obsessed with "fundamentally transforming" America into a neutered, socialist redistributionist state ruled by an all-powerful government, Obama is like a respected "pillar of the community" who hides a dark, secret "other life." Behind his well-cultivated and appealing persona lurks rage, dishonesty, betrayal and shockingly perverse loyalties. The effect of this eight-year slow-release poison on America's national soul has been devastating. 

Obama, who in truth is neither "liberal" nor "Democrat" but a Marxist revolutionary, has pushed the Democratic Party - and much of the country - far to the left. After all, it has been during his presidency that our colleges and universities have transitioned from merely being politically correct leftist indoctrination centers into prime breeding grounds for depression, suicide, sex-and-gender insanity and a pathologically infantile form of political activism. Likewise, rather than elevating the nation beyond race as he pledged, the "first African-American president" has inflamed racial grievances (real or imagined) at every turn, leading to violent race rioting and attacks on law enforcement. 

 Looking forward to the next president now, let's consider Hillary Clinton.  

Suicide epidemic? 'Hillary Clinton could care less'

 Right now, America's suicide rate is the highest it has been in three decades, up among almost every demographic. Why? 

One big reason was discussed by New York's former lieutenant governor, Betsy McCaughey, who wrote recently in the New York Post: "Middle aged people laid off and unable to find work are taking another way out. They're killing themselves. Suicide rates are soaring, according to federal data released last week." 

 And that, says McCaughey, "makes boosting economic growth a life-and-death issue":

But you wouldn't know it listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. President Obama whitewashes reality, claiming the "American economy is pretty darn good right now." False. The Obama economy is stalled. It grew at a measly 0.7 percent annualized rate in the first quarter of this year. That's compared with the 3.5 percent rate the U.S. enjoyed for most of the twentieth century. That's the growth needed to sustain employment and optimism.

"Hillary Clinton could care less about out-of-work people taking their own lives," writes McCaughey, adding:

She's pledging to close down the coal industry and block fracking of natural gas. More pain for coal country or for portions of upstate New York that are sitting on natural gas treasure. Self-inflicted deaths in the Syracuse area are up about 40 percent in the past five years, and rates in depressed western New York are double New York City's rate, all attributable to economic distress. Upstate New Yorkers are literally dying for jobs.

Similarly, joblessness is killing people in Walker County, Alabama where the coal mines have been shutting down, leaving families destitute. Since 1999, premature deaths among the middle aged there have more than doubled - some from suicide and others from slower methods of self-destruction like alcohol and opioids. Anne Case, a Princeton University economist has documented the rapid increase in premature deaths, a consequence of "millions of people ... in pain."

"In the modern era," explains Elizabeth MacBride in the Atlantic, "for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, there has typically been an increase of about 1 percent in the number of suicides, according to Steve Stack, a professor at Wayne State University." 

Calling it a "national health emergency," McCaughey points out that "suicide kills more middle agers than flu, pneumonia, and diabetes combined. Often after dashed expectations, abandonment by a spouse, and loss of self-worth. Then a bullet to the head or a noose (for men), or a deliberate drug overdose (for women) ends the pain." 

But Hillary and the Democratic Party don't care, concludes McCaughey: "These tragedies should awaken this nation to the real issue in the coming presidential election. It is not inequality, despite Bernie Sanders' rantings. It's lack of growth and the Democratic Party's refusal to make growth a priority." 

Again, we must recognize that the current policies of the Democratic Party, and of its 2016 presidential standard-bearer Hillary Clinton, lead to chaos, stress, unemployment, depression and worse. And we're not talking just about economic policy. The Democrats' policies in other areas are equally irrational - like scrubbing the FBI's and DHS's counter-terrorism efforts of all references to "jihad," "Shariah" or "Islam" so as not to offend Muslims. And like enabling hundreds of "sanctuary cities," which serve as magnets for criminal illegal aliens and whose refusal to enforce federal law costs the lives of countless innocents murdered every year. Indeed, Hillary supports the uncontrolled immigration of broken, needy, unassimilable - and increasingly, jihad-prone - people into the American asylum, because statistically they will vote Democrat, and because their presence will create ever more problems for Democrats to pretend to fix. As president, Hillary would appoint as many as four or five Constitution-hating radicals to the Supreme Court, which would in turn serve to render the Obama-era, progressive-left "fundamental transformation" permanent.

Democrats fiercely defend all abortions, even late in pregnancy, resulting in 3,000 deaths per day. Indeed, Hillary even supports the barbaric-and-now-illegal partial-birth abortion procedure. As I said, in every area, Hillary's policies mean pain, suffering and death. 

But let's set aside all the disastrous policy madness and focus on something equally disturbing, but that almost no one is talking about: the spiritual-psychological influence a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on the minds and hearts of Americans if she becomes - are you ready for this? - "the mother of our country."

To do that, we need to focus first on the one essential skill for accomplishing such a bizarrely disastrous agenda - lying. 

Lying - more dangerous than we think

Every poll shows a large majority of voters, including many Democrats, regard Hillary Clinton as fundamentally dishonest and untrustworthy - in other words, as Pulitzer-winning New York Times columnist William Safire put it, she "is a congenital liar." It is a jarring, violating experience to have to listen to somebody whose words and decisions directly affect your life and well-being, but whom you know is always lying to you. It's a constant stress on Americans. 

 Why does Hillary lie? As I write in "The Snapping of the American Mind":

"To super-ambitious, vainglorious leaders such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for whom personal ambition and ideology - however irrational - are their only reality, lying is a vital and creative power. Lies open doors that would otherwise remain shut. Thus in a very real sense, political lies are 'magic words,' the invocation of which represents the exercise of real power - power to impress voters, raise money, demonize critics, win elections, excuse failures, and transform a nation. Ordinary people don't possess this power, as they are constrained from such brazen lying by their conscience and/or fear of being caught. But highly narcissistic people like Obama and Clinton feel they have the freedom - indeed, the mandate - to reshape America by creatively speaking into existence an alternate version of reality, without regard for any higher standard of truth. In other words, to lie."

And here's how famed Christian psychiatrist M. Scott Peck explains pathological liars like Obama and Clinton - people who lie continually to get their way - in his classic bestseller, "People of the Lie":

Malignant narcissism is characterized by an unsubmitted will. All adults who are mentally healthy submit themselves one way or another to something higher than themselves, be it God or truth or love or some other ideal. They do what God wants them to do rather than what they would desire. "Thy will, not mine, be done," the God-submitted person says. They believe in what is true rather than what they would like to be true. … Not so the evil, however. In the conflict between their guilt [from overriding their own conscience] and their will, it is the guilt that must go and the will that must win.

The reader will be struck by the extraordinary willfulness of evil people. They are men and women of obviously strong will, determined to have their own way. There is a remarkable power in the manner in which they attempt to control others.

That's Nurse Ratched. And that's Hillary Clinton. 

Think about what you experience when you see and hear Hillary Clinton on the presidential campaign trail. There is the raspy - often screeching - voice; the finger-pointing, jabbing and poking; the painfully fake laugh with head thrown back; the scripted, carefully lawyered word-parsing when she talks about any of her many scandals; and the stunning lack of even a smidgen of genuineness or authenticity. Hillary is almost unlistenable, like fingernails on a chalkboard. 

There is the nonstop pandering to women, blacks, gays, Muslims and immigrants, the demonizing of Republicans, the pretense at caring - and of course, the nonstop lying. Hillary lies so much you cannot even properly say she is "telling a lie," since her entire life is a lie. Saying someone is "lying" implies that sometimes he or she is not lying. Hillary is always phony, manipulative, calculating, blaming, deflecting - always lying. 

Now, if Hillary is so hard to listen to for five minutes, how would we handle it for four or eight years?

As a thought experiment, fast-forward through the campaign season and imagine that Hillary Clinton has been elected president. The "Never-Trump" people got their wish. It's January 2017, Inauguration Day has come and gone, and Nurse Ratched is now the leader of the free world. 

Can you imagine the effect Hillary Clinton would have on the American psyche as president? 

Life under Nurse Hillary

I'm no prophet. But for what it's worth, here - after 35 years of closely observing the American scene as a journalist and having written three books chronicling the ways evil and corruption play out in our society - are a few speculations about the future of America if Hillary Clinton becomes president. Remember, she would be joined by "co-president" Bill, a lifelong sexual predator with credible criminal allegations against him, including forcible rape. 

If Hillary wins in November, the sheer revulsion of the great American middle class over having to endure Bill and Hillary Clinton back in the White House - this time with the viscerally unlikable Hillary in charge - at such a uniquely crucial time in our history will result in many bad things:

First of all, just having to listen to Hillary will fry the circuitry of many Americans' minds. As I explained earlier, we don't fully comprehend the high stress level involved in being ruled over by someone who is literally lying to us all the time, whose whole life is a pretense, an act, a calculated manipulation - someone who never strikes any familiar chords within our souls of genuine decency, humanity and heartfelt shared values. This alone will create a baseline of constant pain, conflict and anger. 

The middle class will likely sink into a state of depression, both economically and emotionally. Suicide will increase, and not just because Hillary is incapable of improving the economy or creating (non-government) jobs, but because public rage will multiply as people realize they have re-elected the delusional Barack Obama in the form of a corrupt, deceitful, power-mad old woman. The urge to chemically relieve pain will dramatically increase, and the current epidemic level of drug addiction - whether the drug source is a doctor or a dealer - will continue to skyrocket. Millions will drop out of politics in disgust, essentially abdicating rule of the country to the progressive left. Checkmate. 

As with her husband Bill's presidency, Hillary's rule will encourage immorality, sexual anarchy and abandonment of Judeo-Christian values, but also outright criminality and mental illness. The snapping of the American Mind will shift into overdrive.

Disgust and open rebellion will overtake the U.S. military, leading to a mass exit. Same with the FBI, particularly among the over 100 agents who worked diligently on the investigation of Hillary's private email server and her outrageous disregard for America's national security. 

In an age when evil is increasingly portrayed as good, and good as evil; when disordered and immoral behavior is imposed on the rest of society as normal and moral, and dissenting Christians are persecuted and even jailed; Hillary Clinton's presidency will mark the ultimate reversal of values. Whereas once America was blessed with a moral and legendarily honest "father of our country" named George Washington, in Hillary Clinton we'll have an immoral and legendarily dishonest "mother of our country." 

Most important is the message that will be transmitted to America's youth, whose values and worldview are still being formed, by having two people with a long criminal history, and who regard themselves as absolutely above the law, occupy the White House. 

What will reverberate deep in the minds and souls of the young will be much the same as the toxic message ghetto youth absorb when they observe criminals, drug dealers and pimps in their midst becoming "successful" - getting all the women, hot cars, money, power and fame they want. It's the message of the sociopath predator: There is no law but the jungle. Lying and stealing are no problem, because everyone - including the president - does it. Sexually taking whatever I want from others is fine, too - Bill Clinton proved that. Laws are for other people, and morality is whatever I want it to be. I'm gonna get what's mine, take care of me and my friends. If a crime family like Hillary and Bill can get into the White House and be honored by the whole world, I can ignore the law too and take whatever I can get.

For those more sensitive and deeply moral souls, many will drop out of society and live in their own world. The more troubled of these will lose themselves in drugs, addictions and suicide. America, beneath its civilized, high-tech sheen, will increasingly resemble a mental ward. 

But this is the predictable outcome of elevating as a leader someone who pretends to want to take care of others, yet who secretly has contempt for them, indeed whose power is rooted in their very dependency, dysfunction and submission to her. This is the cuckoo's nest run by Nurse Ratched, and America under the rule of Hillary Clinton. 

If Hillary - who by all rights should be in prison for her many crimes - does become president, powerful forces of rage, revulsion and revenge will be unleashed in American society, and a level of pathology and madness we have never before witnessed will arise. 

And everyone will ask, "Whoa, where in the hell did this come from?" 

Now you know. Don't say you weren't warned.


God bless,
JohnnyD

 

Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump Pre-Convention

From: Freedom Outpost

by - MIchael DePinto — July 25, 2016


On Friday, Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 hacked emails it says are from the accounts of Democratic National Committee officials. The documents were released just days before the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia.

The hacked emails revealed the DNC’s hatred for Bernie Sanders and his movement. The documents reveal the party’s hidden ties with the liberal media. The emails reveal the heights of dishonesty of the party infrastructure.

Now there is a list of a few of the most shocking emails released by Wikileaks.

The list was compiled thanks to the work of Reddit Bernie Sander supporters and Donald Trump supporters: 
  Hat Tip Steve A.

DNC member killing horses for insurance money. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black womans name. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.” https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102  
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.” https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762  
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304
DNC discussing Hillary’s policies as unfeasible. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519  
$200k for a private dinner with Hillary. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287  
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
 A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793  
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230  
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808  
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077  
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a cooridanted campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784  
DNC is upset that their “allies” didn’t send in protestors so they sent out interns. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.” https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
$50,000 – Lawrence Benenson. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700
Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875
Content & Social Strategy Discussion. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512  
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933  
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586
Fwd: State Dinner Countdown. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901
Some chick is angry she hasn’t been given more stuff from the Obama administration might be interesting to follow up. Re: State Dinner Countdown. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946
Tim O’Brien: Trump’s Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496
RE: May Fundraising Numbers. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5615 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13986
Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics. https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788  
Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728  
Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6087
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20148  
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.” https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830
RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids). https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736


God bless,
JohnnyD

Dinesh D'Souza: The secret history of the Democratic Party

From: Fox News

By Dinesh D'Souza -  July 22, 2016

Editor's note: The following column is excerpted from Dinesh D'Souza's new book, "Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party" (Regnery Publishing, July 18, 2016). 
 
Contrary to what we learn from progressives in education and the media, the history of the Democratic Party well into the twentieth century is a virtually uninterrupted history of thievery, corruption and bigotry.  American history is the story of Democratic malefactors and Republican heroes.  Yes, it’s true.

I begin with Andrew Jackson. He—not Thomas Jefferson or FDR—is the true founder of the modern Democratic Party.  Progressives today are divided about Jackson.  Some, like historian Sean Wilentz, admire him, while others want to remove him from the $20 bill because he was a slaveowner and a vicious Indian fighter.  He was, in this view, a very bad American. 

I support the debunking of Jackson, but not because he was a bad American—rather, because he was a typical crooked Democrat.  Jackson established the Democratic Party as the party of theft.  He mastered the art of stealing land from the Indians and then selling it at giveaway prices to white settlers.  Jackson’s expectation was that those people would support him politically, as indeed they did.  Jackson was indeed a “man of the people,” but his popularity was that of a gang leader who distributes his spoils in exchange for loyalty on the part of those who benefit from his crimes. 

Jackson also figured out how to benefit personally from his land-stealing.  Like Hillary Clinton, he started out broke and then became one of the richest people in the country.  How?  Jackson and his partners and cronies made early bids on Indian land, sometimes even before the Indians had been evacuated from that land.  They acquired the land for little or nothing and later sold it for a handsome profit.  Remarkably, the roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the land-stealing policies of America’s first Democratic president.

The Democrats were also the party of slavery, and the slave-owning mentality continues to shape the policies of Democratic leaders today.  The point isn’t that the Democrats invented slavery which is an ancient institution that far predates America.  Rather, Democrats like Senator John C. Calhoun invented a new justification for slavery, slavery as a “positive good.”  For the first time in history, Democrats insisted that slavery wasn’t just beneficial for masters; they said it was also good for the slaves.

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

Today progressive pundits attempt to conceal Democratic complicity in slavery by blaming slavery on the “South.”  These people have spun a whole history that portrays the slavery battle as one between the anti-slavery North and the pro-slavery South.  This of course benefits Democrats today, because today the Democratic Party’s main strength is in the north and the Republican Party’s main strength is in the South.

But the slavery battle was not mainly a North-South issue.  It was actually a battle between the pro-slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans.  How can I make such an outrageous statement?  Let’s begin by recalling that northern Democrats like Stephen Douglas protected slavery, while most southerners didn’t own slaves.  (Three fourths of those who fought in the civil war on the confederate side had no slaves and weren’t fighting to protect slavery.) 

Republicans, meanwhile, to one degree or another, all opposed slavery.  The party itself was founded to stop slavery.  Of course there were a range of views among Republicans, from abolitionists who sought immediately to end slavery to Republicans like Abraham Lincoln who recognized that this was both constitutionally and politically impossible and focused on arresting slavery’s extension into the new territories.  This was the main platform on which Lincoln won the 1860 election.

The real clash was between the Democrats, north and south, who supported slavery and the Republicans across the country who opposed it.  As Lincoln summarized it in his First Inaugural Address, one side believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, and the other believes it is wrong and ought to be restricted. “This,” Lincoln said, “is the only substantial dispute.”  And this, ultimately, was what the Civil War was all about.

In the end, of course, Republicans ended slavery and permanently outlawed it through the Thirteenth Amendment.  Democrats responded by opposing the Amendment and a group of them assassinated the man they held responsible for emancipation, Abraham Lincoln.  Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment securing for blacks equal rights under the law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote, over the Democrats’ opposition.

Confronted with these irrefutable facts, progressives act like the lawyer who is presented with the murder weapon belonging to his client.  Darn, he says to himself, I better think fast.  “Yes,” he now admits, “my client did murder the clerk and rob the store.  But he didn’t kill all those other people who were also found dead at the scene.” 

In other words, progressives who are forced to acknowledge the Democratic Party’s pro-slavery history promptly respond, “We admit to being the party of slavery, and we did uphold the institution for more than a century, but slavery ended in 1865, so all of this was such a long time ago.  You can’t blame us now for the antebellum wrongs of the Democratic Party.”

Yes, but what about the postbellum crimes of the Democratic Party? From Democratic support for slavery, let’s turn to the party’s complicity in segregation and the Ku Klux Klan.  Democrats in the 1880s invented segregation and Jim Crow laws that lasted through the 1960s.  Democrats also came up with the “separate but equal” rationale that justified segregation and pretended that it was for the benefit of African Americans.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, Tennessee by a group of former confederate soldiers; its first grand wizard was a confederate general who was also a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.  The Klan soon spread beyond the South to the Midwest and the West and became, in the words of historian Eric Foner, “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.” 

The main point of the Klan’s orgy of violence was to prevent blacks from voting—voting, that is, for Republicans.  Leading Democrats including at least one president, two Supreme Court justices, and innumerable Senators and Congressmen were Klan members.  The last one, Robert Byrd, died in 2010 and was eulogized by President Obama and former President Bill Clinton.

The sordid history of the Democratic Party in the early twentieth century is also married to the sordid history of the progressive movement during the same period.  Progressives like Margaret Sanger—founder of Planned Parenthood and a role model for Hillary Clinton—supported such causes as eugenics and social Darwinism.  While abortion was not an issue in Sanger’s day, she backed forced sterilization for “unfit” people, notably minorities.  Sanger’s Negro Project was specifically focused on reducing the black population.

Progressives also led the campaign to stop poor immigrants from coming to this country.   They championed laws in the 1920s that brought the massive flows of immigration to this country to a virtual halt.  The motives of the progressives were openly racist and and in the way the immigration restrictions were framed, progressives succeeded in broadening the Democratic Party’s target list of minority groups. 

While the Democratic Party previously singled out blacks and native Indians, progressives showed Democrats how to suppress all minorities.  Included in the new list were Central and South American Hispanics as well as Eastern and Southern Europeans.  Many of these people were clearly white but progressives did not consider white enough.  Like blacks, they were considered “unfit” on the basis of their complexion.

During the 1920s, progressives developed a fascination with and admiration for Italian and German fascism, and the fascists, for their part, praised American progressives.  These were likeminded people who spoke the same language, and progressives and fascists worked together to implement programs to sterilize so-called mental defectives and “unfit” people, resulting subsequently in tens of thousands of forced sterilizations in America and hundreds of thousands in Nazi Germany. 

During the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sent members of his brain trust to Europe to study fascist economic programs, which he considered more advanced that anything his New Deal had implemented to date.  FDR was enamored with Mussolini, whom he called the “admirable Italian gentleman.”  Some Democrats even had a soft spot for Hitler: young JFK went to Germany before World War II and praised Hitler as a “legend” and blamed hostility to the Nazis as jealousy resulting from how much the Nazis had accomplished.

Yes, I know. Very little of this is known by people today because progressives have done such a good job of sweeping it all under the rug.  This material is simply left out of the textbooks even though it is right there in the historical record.  Some progressive pundits know about it, but they don’t want to talk about it. 

Indeed many progressives have been working hard to come up with lies that can be passed off as facts.  Progressives have a whole cultural contingent—Hollywood, the mainline media, the elite universities, even professional comedians—to peddle their propaganda.  From the television show Madame Secretary to the front page of the New York Times to nightly quips by Stephen Colbert, the progressive bilge comes at us continually and relentlessly.

 In this bogus narrative, Republicans are the bad guys because Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.  For progressive Democrats, the civil rights movement is the canonical event of American history.  It is even more important than the American Revolution.  Progressive reasoning is: we did this, so it must be the greatest thing that was ever done in America.  Republicans opposed it, which makes them the bad guys.

The only problem is that Republicans were instrumental—actually indispensable—in getting the Civil Rights Laws passed.  While Lyndon Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the backing of some northern Democrats, Republicans voted in far higher percentages for the bill than Democrats did.  This was also true of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Neither would have passed with just Democratic votes. Indeed, the main opposition to both bills came from Democrats.

Interestingly enough the GOP is not merely the party of minority rights but also of women’s rights.  Republicans included women’s suffrage in the party’s platform as early as 1896. The first woman elected to Congress was Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916.  That year represented a major GOP push for suffrage, and after the GOP regained control of Congress, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women’s suffrage was finally approved in 1919 and ratified by the states the following year.

The inclusion of women in the 1964 Civil Rights Act was, oddly enough, the work of group of racist, chauvinist Democrats.  Led by Democratic Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, this group was looking to defeat the Civil Rights Act.  Smith proposed to amend the legislation and add “sex” to “race” as a category protected against discrimination. 

Smith’s Democratic buddies roared with laughter when he offered his one-word amendment.  They thought it would make the whole civil rights thing so ridiculous that no sane person would go along with it.  One scholar noted that Smith’s amendment “stimulated several hours of humorous debate” among racist, chauvinist Democrats.  But to their amazement, the amended version of the bill passed. It bears repeating that Republicans provided the margin of victory that extended civil rights protection both to minorities and to women.

This article is excerpted from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book Hillary’s America, which was published this month by Regnery and is accompanied by a film of the same name that opened in theaters nationwide on July 22.


God bless,
JohnnyD