Quotes from Dinesh D'Souza

Why did they do it? They did it because the Democrats promised them economic benefits. These benefits meant a great deal to blacks then living through the hardships of segregation and the Great Depression. Democrats offered blacks some of the same security that blacks had during slavery—in which the basic needs of blacks were met on the plantation—and blacks, during a desperate time, went for it.

For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It's one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats' distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic Party.

Alinsky profited handsomely from his rackets. Even Hillary Clinton notes in her thesis that while Alinsky spoke endlessly about poverty and disadvantage, he himself lived very comfortably, far removed from the people on whose behalf he allegedly fought.21

The progressive pretense is that these people, who have created virtually nothing, are actually the real creators of the nation's wealth.

This was one of the most significant political transformations in American history. Long-term, it has proven to be a terrible bargain for blacks. They have remained the worst-off group in America, surpassed even by poverty-stricken immigrants who came to this country much later with nothing. The inner city remains a kind of Third World enclave in America, and whether or not blacks realize it, the Democrats intend to keep it that way.

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

Yet counterproductive though the black shift of political allegiance has proven over the past seventy-five years, I cannot entirely blame black Americans for making it. They were under extreme economic stress. And they were conned by the artful pitch men of the Democratic Party. These pitch men said to blacks: you have had it hard enough in the past; now you deserve to be taken care of by the federal government. And many blacks figured: after all we've been through, this is our due.

We remain the custodians of the idea that wealth should be obtained through

At the same time, progressives began to redefine fascism and Nazism in such a way that they could project these evils onto the right, so that future generations would be bamboozled into thinking that the Republicans, not the Democrats, the conservatives, not the progressives, were in bed with Mussolini and Hitler in the critical decades leading up to global war and Holocaust.

America is founded on the understanding that wealth can be created through innovation and enterprise. Through the system of technological capitalism, we can go from ten marbles to twenty marbles without taking anyone's marbles.

The larger picture is that the socialist camp wants high, even confiscatory, income tax rates, complemented by additional levies on wealth and, in some cases, even compulsory worker control of large industries—which gets us closer to the classic, never-before-achieved Marxian conception of socialism.

Even so, the proposal is interesting because Jackson was a Democrat—the founding father of the Democratic Party—while Tubman was a Republican. Admittedly

The racism of the Democratic Party in America not only preceded the racism of the Nazis, it lasted far longer—more than a century compared to the twelve years of Nazi rule in Germany. The Democratic Party's racism after the Civil War was preceded by the Democratic Party's defense of slavery and its support of policies for the relocation and extermination of American Indians.

The progressive media is not comfortable with a female black abolitionist representing the Republican Party while a white male slave owner represents the Democratic Party.

We think of concepts like "genocide" and "concentration camps" as unique to Nazism, but what term other than genocide can we use to describe Democratic president Andrew Jackson's mass relocation of the Indians? Didn't Jackson and his allies systematically seek to dispossess, disinherit, and dismember the Indians as a people? Using the official United Nations definition of genocide, I show that he did.

Some of them even insisted that slavery benefited both the master and the slave, because slavery gave full employment to people who were incapable of doing anything better than menial work. And here is Hillary Clinton making essentially the same case, not in defense of slavery, but in defense of illegal immigration.

In the German camps and on the Democrat-run plantations, forced labor was employed with "human tools" solely with regard to productivity and with little if any regard for the lives of the workers who were, in both cases, considered inferior and even subhuman. The analogy between two of the worst compulsory confinement and forced labor systems in human history is not merely legitimate; it is overdue.

No, what interests me most here is the familiar attitude of superiority, condescension, and disdain. That was evident in the pro-slavery blather of the nineteenth century, and it was on full display at the Mandarin Oriental in November 2014. Democrats, it seems, never change their stripes.

Inequality of outcomes is not seen as a necessary evil that government should seek to remedy; rather, the government itself exists to guard citizens' right to accumulate unequal fortunes and property.

We can see this quite clearly if we follow the fortunes of Hillary Clinton. She is a woman who has clearly had fortuna on her side, and in addition, she and her husband have ingeniously and ruthlessly manipulated their circumstances for personal gain. Hillary

Democrats offered blacks some of the same security that blacks had during slavery—in which the basic needs of blacks were met on the plantation—and blacks, during a desperate time, went for it.

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 wants 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.

No wonder that Obama, Hillary, and other progressive crime bosses have no compunction about living high on the hog while continuing their dishonest pitches about fair shares, injustice, and inequality.

Today's socialist Left, however, wants an America that integrates the groups seen as previously excluded while excluding the group that was previously included. "If you are white, male, heterosexual, and religiously or socially conservative," writes author and editor Rod Dreher, "there's no place for you" on the progressive left.