Dinesh D’Souza uncovers Progressive theft in Stealing America

Dinesh D’Souza uncovers Progressive theft in Stealing America

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., February 14, 2016 — Dinesh D’Souza has done it again. He’s written a book that speaks to the situation we’re in and he does it brilliantly. His subtitle sets the premise: “Why Hillary, Obama, and the entire Democratic Party are no better than a gang of thieves.”

In the fall of 2014, D’Souza was hauled into federal court for improperly donating money to an old friend’s Senate campaign. This was unusual: Such infringements of campaign finance laws are usually dealt with administratively by the Federal Election Commission with a fine.

Not so when you’re a conservative at odds with the power elite on the left.

D’Souza recounts the process in his opening chapter. Eventually, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced by a punitive Judge Berman to eight months in a state-run confinement center in San Diego. There he lived among hardened criminals—drug dealers, thieves, gangbangers, rapists, and murderers.

Always the curious intellectual, D’Souza gets to know his fellow inmates. Their stories are interesting in their own right; one could read the book just for that.

After some time, however, D’Souza begins to realize the parallel between the cons pulled by the cons he’s incarcerated with and the cons pulled on America by the Clintons, Obama and entire political left.

The con, in short, is that those feel-good liberals who just want to help people and spread the wealth around are really most interested in spreading the wealth to themselves and their friends:

“Suddenly I had an epiphany: this system of larceny, corruption, and terror that I encountered firsthand in the confinement center is exactly the same system that has been adopted and perfected by modern progressivism and the Democratic Party.”

That story is as old as civilization. You can find it played out in any number of tin-pot dictatorships all over the world. The story of a ruling class oppressing everyone else is more the rule than the exception, whether the ruling class is a king and an aristocracy or the vanguard of the proletariat.

But this is America. We are supposed to be exceptional. We are the only nation in history founded on the ideal that all men are created equal, that justice is blind, that everyone has the opportunity to succeed—and to keep his or her well-earned gains.

What D’Souza discovers and chronicles is that modern progressivism is nothing more than a big con—or, to be more accurate, a series of cons all aiming at the same goal: making the con men rich and powerful.

It’s that simple.

“The mafia’s goal is not to make a ‘new man’ or to achieve some kind of utopia but rather to steal the labor and wealth of existing human beings.”

That simple and yet that complex. Many on the political conservative side have spent the past seven years trying to make sense of the “fundamental transformation of America.” What does it mean, exactly? What is the philosophy behind it? Is it socialism? Cultural Marxism?

It was all a waste of time and effort.

If D’Souza is correct, it was all a big con. The cloak of Progressivism was just a smokescreen, a misdirection.

“The truth is that for too long, like many intellectual conservatives, I have lived in a world of ideological abstraction. The progressives love that.”

D’Souza builds his theory by first examining the career of Chicago’s Saul Alinsky. We knew he was a thug, but D’Souza gives us much more detail about his career and relationships with the Chicago mob.

He then looks at Alinsky’s two most famous acolytes: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He uses their own words to describe their motivations.

The test of any theory is its explanatory power. This theory explains a lot that is otherwise inexplicable.

There is no concern for the poor; there is instead the not-so-transparent effort to transfer money to the poor in exchange for votes and the concurrent effort to define more and more people as “poor.”

Why else, after 50 years of the War of Poverty are the inner city poor worse off? And not coincidentally, they vote 100 percent Democratic.

Why has Hillary Clinton not been indicted for felonies that would send anyone else to jail?

Why does Hillary Clinton keep trying to reinvent herself and her campaign if she were simply a doctrinaire progressive, as she claims? Although we might recoil at the plans of socialist Bernie Sanders, at least he is honest about who he is.

Why do Hillary and Barack rail against the wealth of the 1 percent and then attend $37,500-a-plate dinners attended by—the 1 percent? Under these saviors of the poor, the rich have gotten richer while the rest remain, at best, stagnant.

Saul Alinsky was a small-time thug; according to D’Souza, his disciples aim to pull off the biggest heist in history, stealing the wealth of America. In writing this book, D’Souza seeks to warn us of this crime.

The only weakness of his analysis is that he attributes all this corruption to the Democratic Party. There’s plenty of it in both parties in Washington; the Democrats are just better at justifying it under the guise of Progressive ideology.

Let’s hope that we are still honest enough and courageous enough to fight the progressive con.

“It’s time to wake up, open our eyes, get on our feet, and shut down this con.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.