Read Online Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party by Dinesh D'Souza - Free Book Online
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
Ads: Link
biography Andrew Jackson . Jon Meacham’s Pulitzer Prize–winning biography American Lion , published in 2008, continues the progressive conspiracy of silence. Shhh!
FROM JACKSON TO HILLARY
The full story, however, is told in Steve Inskeep’s recent book Jacksonland , which I will rely on for my subsequent account. “Jacksonmanaged national security affairs in a way that matched his interest in land development,” Inskeep notes. “He shaped his real estate investments to complement his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.” 16
As Inskeep shows, typically Jackson would set his eye on a large tract of Indian territory. Then, even before chasing the Indians off that territory, Jackson would send surveyors in to assess the land in terms of its real estate value. Jackson would then alert his cronies, and together they would make a bid to purchase that real estate. In this way Jackson became a Tennessee plantation magnate and one of the largest slave owners in his home state.
Jackson was a ruthless con artist who became fabulously wealthy by trading on his political office. Sound familiar? His career illustrates the familiar Democratic story of leaders making sure that when there are spoils to be distributed, the lion’s share goes to them. Obviously not all Democrats use their political positions to get rich, but a number of them, from Jackson himself to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton, certainly did.
Jackson’s true modern counterpart—as you have probably figured out by now—is Hillary Clinton. Their stories are closely parallel. If Hillary started out “dead broke,” as she claims she did, after her husband’s presidency, so did Jackson begin with nothing as an orphan. Neither of them became successful through starting and running a successful business. Rather, they cashed in on their political influence. Just as Jackson made money on land deals stemming from his success as a general, Hillary too figured out ways to enrich herself through her government positions, becoming fabulously wealthy in just a few years.
It may seem that Hillary “succeeded” through foreign policy while Jackson “succeeded” through domestic policy. Actually, they both succeeded through foreign policy. Let’s remember that Jackson was dealing with the Indian tribes who were, as a matter of law, separate nations. Consequently we may accurately say that the current nominee of the Democratic Party is a worthy successor of its founder. The roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the land-stealing policies of Andrew Jackson.
Unsurprisingly, it is whitewash time for Democratic historians and pundits. This whitewash takes several forms. First, the Democrats accuse “America,” not Jackson and his successors, of abusing the Indians. Specifically, they blast the earliest Europeans to arrive on the American continent, and the Founders, for dispossessing the native Indians. The goal is to treat Jackson as simply a bad white American, instead of a bad Democrat.
Second, the Democrats pretend to have no connection with the thievery of Jackson and his fellow Democrats. They might acknowledge that Jackson cleared the Indians out of several states in order to build constituencies of grateful whites who then settled those states. Faced with facts, they may also concede that Jackson enriched himself and his cronies through his land stealing.
Even so, today’s Democrats profess to be shocked, shocked to see their fellow Democrats engaged in such behavior. That was then, they suggest, and this is now. What does this have to do with us today? What does it have to do with Hillary? No resemblance to the current frontrunner of the Democratic Party is even suspected.
Yet as we saw with the Clintons in Haiti, the tradition of Jacksonian piracy is alive and well in today’s Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders may have the same Jacksonian objectives as Hillary, but only Hillary
FROM JACKSON TO HILLARY
The full story, however, is told in Steve Inskeep’s recent book Jacksonland , which I will rely on for my subsequent account. “Jacksonmanaged national security affairs in a way that matched his interest in land development,” Inskeep notes. “He shaped his real estate investments to complement his official duties, and performed his official duties in a way that benefited his real estate interests.” 16
As Inskeep shows, typically Jackson would set his eye on a large tract of Indian territory. Then, even before chasing the Indians off that territory, Jackson would send surveyors in to assess the land in terms of its real estate value. Jackson would then alert his cronies, and together they would make a bid to purchase that real estate. In this way Jackson became a Tennessee plantation magnate and one of the largest slave owners in his home state.
Jackson was a ruthless con artist who became fabulously wealthy by trading on his political office. Sound familiar? His career illustrates the familiar Democratic story of leaders making sure that when there are spoils to be distributed, the lion’s share goes to them. Obviously not all Democrats use their political positions to get rich, but a number of them, from Jackson himself to Lyndon Johnson to Bill Clinton, certainly did.
Jackson’s true modern counterpart—as you have probably figured out by now—is Hillary Clinton. Their stories are closely parallel. If Hillary started out “dead broke,” as she claims she did, after her husband’s presidency, so did Jackson begin with nothing as an orphan. Neither of them became successful through starting and running a successful business. Rather, they cashed in on their political influence. Just as Jackson made money on land deals stemming from his success as a general, Hillary too figured out ways to enrich herself through her government positions, becoming fabulously wealthy in just a few years.
It may seem that Hillary “succeeded” through foreign policy while Jackson “succeeded” through domestic policy. Actually, they both succeeded through foreign policy. Let’s remember that Jackson was dealing with the Indian tribes who were, as a matter of law, separate nations. Consequently we may accurately say that the current nominee of the Democratic Party is a worthy successor of its founder. The roots of the Clinton Foundation can be found in the land-stealing policies of Andrew Jackson.
Unsurprisingly, it is whitewash time for Democratic historians and pundits. This whitewash takes several forms. First, the Democrats accuse “America,” not Jackson and his successors, of abusing the Indians. Specifically, they blast the earliest Europeans to arrive on the American continent, and the Founders, for dispossessing the native Indians. The goal is to treat Jackson as simply a bad white American, instead of a bad Democrat.
Second, the Democrats pretend to have no connection with the thievery of Jackson and his fellow Democrats. They might acknowledge that Jackson cleared the Indians out of several states in order to build constituencies of grateful whites who then settled those states. Faced with facts, they may also concede that Jackson enriched himself and his cronies through his land stealing.
Even so, today’s Democrats profess to be shocked, shocked to see their fellow Democrats engaged in such behavior. That was then, they suggest, and this is now. What does this have to do with us today? What does it have to do with Hillary? No resemblance to the current frontrunner of the Democratic Party is even suspected.
Yet as we saw with the Clintons in Haiti, the tradition of Jacksonian piracy is alive and well in today’s Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders may have the same Jacksonian objectives as Hillary, but only Hillary
Similar Books
Paris or Bust!: Romancing Roxanne?\Daddy Come Lately\Love Is in the Air
Jacqueline Diamond, Jill Shalvis, Kate Hoffmann
