Hillary's America [DVD + Digital]

Visually impressive with whimsical humor smoothly integrated into the presentation, this is one of the best executed and entertaining political documentaries I've ever seen. Any "pro" critic attacking this film on production quality is a dishonest and/or incompetent hack (which frankly describes most of them; it's a pompous "profession" built on a foundation of thin air). The laughable contrast between rock bottom "pro" critic scores and sky high audience scores, typical of quality conservative or Christian films (for leftist films like Michael Moore's it's often the reverse) is more of an indictment on critics' pervasive leftist/secular bias than movies like this. On substance D'Souza provides lessons on political party history that are sorely needed given the dismal state of historical knowledge among many in the current generation (a consequence of the Democrats' academic "plantation", to borrow a metaphor from the film). One of my few quibbles is that I think he overemphasizes the "principle" of racial bigotry among early Democrats, mostly because this risks ascribing more nobility to the party than it deserves, in characterizing it as having principles, even reprehensible ones. The Democratic party was actually formed when disparate interest groups, local machines, and individuals coalesced around Andrew Jackson simply because everyone knew he was going to be the next president. The Democratic Party is the only modern party in the world I know of that was founded not to advance an ideological agenda or specific policy, but solely for the acquisition of power for its own sake. Some strategies have changed and ideology plays a larger role now, but that core aspect of party culture has continued to this day, and even leftist ideology (which first rose in the US near the end of the 19th Century) is essentially about seizing power. Fortunately D'Souza's film better captures this as it goes on. D'Souza's opinions are mostly built around unassailable facts, which is why the Democrat responses have been so petty and devoid of substance. To wit, the X-Ray "trivia" section is worth a mention. It's entirely focused on taking petty cheap shots rather than providing useful behind the scenes facts, though it only consists of 10 entries, so they couldn't come up with much. The page is worthless apart from the unintentional amusement it provides. One line reads: "This film is considered a documentary, even though most of the footage is staged." Gee, just about every historical documentary I've seen includes loads of animations and re-enacted scenes. This movie was actually light on animations and was mostly live action scenes with quality acting. X-Ray makes sure to note this: "This is the first movie that critic Brad Jones walked out on." Sure, that's because he's a closed minded leftist hack. But this gem takes the cake (sic): "Factual Error: Denish D'Souza mentioned that no republican owned slaves. This is not entirely true. Some republicans did own slaves before they joined the party, e.g. Francis Preston Blair who was first a democrat and owned slaves until the 1850s but became a member of the party in 1854 when he started helping organizing the Republican party. Also Alabama's governor William Hugh Smith owned slaves but changed it when he became a republican in the 1860s." The leftist morons who wrote the X-Ray page not only misspelled Dinesh D'Souza's name (happened again lower on the page), committing an ACTUAL factual error, and failed to capitalize proper political party names, but only confirmed what Dinesh said since both their supposed exceptions, presumably the best they could find, weren't Republicans when they owned slaves and gave them up when they became Republicans. That this clear hit job page is so petty, insipid, and self defeating only makes the film look even greater. Still, I give Amazon Prime credit for actually hosting a conservative film. It makes me far more likely to renew my subscription in the future. Judging by the overwhelmingly positive ratings from a number of reviewers much larger than one might expect for a political documentary, I'm not alone. Clearly there's a huge, underserved market for such material so hopefully they offer much more conservative fare in the future.

Dinesh D'Souza is a superb filmmaker and Hillary's America is a tremendously important film possessing a rich admixture of humor, erudition, wit and scholarly inquiry. The film helps to explain, and it underscores the currently dreadful malaise in which most Americans now find themselves. D'Souza argues that as Americans throughout our history, we have been subjected to a "con job" of massive proportions by the Democratic Party. Hillary's America engages you, indeed it captivates you with a variety of cinematic techniques in which you enter a continuous and exceedingly valuable journey of Anerican discovery about the too often concealed and sordid roots of the Democratic Party in the post Jeffersonian Era. Damning and to be sure controversial assessments are offered regarding the core policies of Andrew Jackson, Stephen Douglas, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Lyndon Johnson. Still, D'Souza's treatment lacks pomposity and contains potent facts as well as breadth and vision. Hillary's America is also replete with critical historical example, rich detail and keen perspective. All of this renders Hillary's America an absolute MUST SEE, prior to Election Day on November 8th. Undecided voters and certainly Millennials are strongly advised to buy this DVD and attempt to think out of the confining box in which they have been subjected by the Democratic Party for so much of its existence. Reminescent of Michael Moore's Roger and Me, but far more thorough and serious about key factors afflicting America's terrible decline, Hillary's America contains throughout, a nobleness of purpose that the thoughtful viewer will grasp at once, and the low information voter will similarly find shocking, intriguing and convincing. With enormous skill, D'Souza has created an uplifting work that is solemn, perspicacious, highly entertaining and worthy of the term great! The fierce resistance that this film received from journalistic agents representing the corporate mass media is certainly most disturbing, but not in the least surprising given the ongoing agenda of the corporate mass media towards advancing the policies of the Democrats. As D'Souza tells us during the outset of the fillm and through an insightful analysis offered by an inmate that has befriended D'Souza in prison: always maintain "the con" never let go of it! All too vividly, we see how this approach has been followed by Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and unimaginably rich and powerful elites with unwavering backing from the corporate mass media that they dominate. This assessment has been most recently confirmed by the torrent of Wikileaks documents that plainly reveal the extent and means by which the corporate mass media and the Democratic Party have colluded while sustaining a singleness of purpose and wide range of politically efficacious "cons" "Judgement Day for Hillary's America at the time of this writing lies only thirty days alway.

People are saying this is just propaganda... Is it propaganda that the Democrats have a history of discrimination? You can't call history "propaganda" Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative, and has a long history of discrimination. The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s. In contrast, the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party. Its mission was to stop the spread of slavery into the new western territories with the aim of abolishing it entirely. This effort, however, was dealt a major blow by the Supreme Court. In the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that slaves aren’t citizens; they’re property. The seven justices who voted in favor of slavery? All Democrats. The two justices who dissented? Both Republicans. The slavery question was, of course, ultimately resolved by a bloody civil war. The commanderin-chief during that war was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln – the man who freed the slaves. Six days after the Confederate army surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated President Lincoln. Lincoln’s vice president, a Democrat named Andrew Johnson, assumed the presidency. But Johnson adamantly opposed Lincoln’s plan to integrate the newly freed slaves into the South’s economic and social order. Johnson and the Democratic Party were unified in their opposition to the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment, which gave blacks citizenship; and the 15th Amendment, which gave blacks the vote. All three passed only because of universal Republican support. During the era of Reconstruction, federal troops stationed in the south helped secure rights for the newly freed slaves. Hundreds of black men were elected to southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the US Congress by 1900. The Democrats did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935. But after Reconstruction ended, when the federal troops went home, Democrats roared back Free Courses for Free Minds .com into power in the South. They quickly reestablished white supremacy across the region with measures like black codes – laws that restricted the ability of blacks to own property and run businesses. And they imposed poll taxes and literacy tests, used to subvert the black citizen’s right to vote. And how was all of this enforced? By terror -- much of it instigated by the Ku Klux Klan, founded by a Democrat, Nathan Bedford Forrest. As historian Eric Foner - himself a Democrat - notes: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, shared many views with the Klan. He re-segregated many federal agencies, and even screened the first movie ever played at the White House - the racist film “The Birth of a Nation,” originally entitled “The Clansman.” A few decades later, the only serious congressional opposition to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam. And when all of their efforts to enslave blacks, keep them enslaved, and then keep them from voting had failed, the Democrats came up with a new strategy: If black people are going to vote, they might as well vote for Democrats. As President Lyndon Johnson was purported to have said about the Civil Rights Act, “I’ll have them n*****s voting Democrat for two hundred years.” So now, the Democratic Party prospers on the votes of the very people it has spent much of its history oppressing. Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime. So, when you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party should come to mind?

This documentary by D'Souza is powerful in describing the history of the Democrat Party and the Big Lies that it has promoted. The film starts off with D'Souza's sentencing for giving over the legal limit in campaign donations, which as FBI documents show was done in a way for the Obama Administration to get back at the filmmaker for his previous documentary. (And if one doesn't think it was political, please point to any other person who has given over the limit in much more severe cases who has received prison time--George Soros or Rosie O'Donnell come to mind as those who have gotten away). This is just the beginning of the Democrat Party corruption that the film describes. The film talks about history that is skipped over in most schools and ignored by the media. Among the topics covered are the founder of the Democrat Party Andrew Jackson and his policies toward indigenous Americans and African Americans. The film goes into the rise of the Republican Party as the opposition to slavery, and describes how not 1 Republican owned a slave. The Civil War was not a film between the North and South, but stemmed from the fight between the pro-slavery Democrats and the anti-slavery Republicans. Even northern Democrats supported slavery. The Democrat Party then proceeded to fight the civil rights movements that the Republicans led, including freeing slaves, giving blacks the right to vote, and giving women the right to vote. Meanwhile, the Democrat Party supported segregation, lynchings, and used the KKK as the militant arm of the party. Gun control by the Democrat Party was used to prevent blacks from protecting themselves against the terror of the KKK. Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the government, the fight by heroic Ida B. Wells, and former KKK member LBJ's racism are on full display. The film also ties in the Big Lie that Democrats use that claim the political parties switched sides (in order to save face), a claim which is easily debunked. Other topics included are the new racism of the Democrat Party, such as the Democrat urban plantation in exchange for minority votes (but forever keeping them on the plantation), Margaret Sanger's racism and eugenics movement that was aimed at controlling the black population, and the con games that the Democrat Party uses today based on ideologies such as those from the radical Saul Alinsky. Detractors in other reviews criticize the film as being biased, a hit piece, and staged acting. This is all part of the smear campaign on this documentary, a process described eloquently in Sharyl Atkinson's recent book The Smear, in which political hit jobs are used to discredit viewpoints and stories that political parties do not want to get out. This explains the 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. But here's the thing: all documentaries have bias. That is why they are made. But the question should be: is the documentary factual? If one checks out the low star reviews, the reviewers cannot prove anything was factually inaccurate. They are merely hit pieces, ashamed of the truth of the party they support. D'Souza actually did his research and the re-enactments are based on actual events and quotes. The truth of the matter is that Democrats are scared that if this information gets out there (and can be easily verified by research), that many blacks and minority members in America will probably not vote Democrat anymore, which would be disastrous for the party. Don't believe the detractors. If you are open-minded and care about the truth (and particularly history that has been deliberately hidden from you by educators and the media), you need to watch this film. Then feel free to research the information presented and decide for yourself.

I can't say I'm a particular fan of Dinesh D'Souza, but I do have to say - this being the first movie of his I've watched - that this was pretty interesting. I certainly learned more than a few things I didn't know (that the first Congressman assassinated was killed by a slavery-loving Democrat), and I had no idea that Ida B. Wells, the first black female journalist hired by a predominantly white newspaper, was a firebrand and a diehard Republican. The details about the Clintons, too, were noteworthy. I didn't know the backstory of the Russian purchase of the company that owned American uranium stocks, but it's horribly fascinating. Frank Giustra, a Canadian billionaire in the mining industry, tried for years to get uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan, a country run by a notoriously authoritarian regime. Giustra, a Friend of Bill (Clinton), wanted the country's uranium rights. Bill Clinton gave a speech, declaring how great human rights were in Kazakhstan, and suddenly Giustra gets the uranium concession. A few weeks later, Giustra gives the Clinton Foundation $31 million, part of an eventual $100 million he'd donate, but it was a bargain. Giustra is estimated to have made $300 million on the deal. In 2009, the Russian government wants to buy the company, Uranium One (which had absorbed Giustra's company), while Hillary Clinton is now head of the state department. Eight investors write $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, and then the State Dept. signs off on the purchase. That company owns uranium rights in the United States. Fascinating stuff; the only thing more interesting is how the Clintons got away with it. Congress is still investigating, but it looks like our native criminal class just makes money, hand over fist, and nobody is going to stop them. Even if just for the history, this film is worth a look. But don't be surprised if your stomach twists in knots as convoluted as the corruption we're still trying to unravel to this day.

Extraordinary production everyone should see. As a life long democrat and now independent due to my former party's conspiracy in assassinating one of its own in the early 60's, I agree with the history put-forth in this film. It is accurately presented and historically grounded in fact all should recognize and know. This creation is a revelation of the sordid truth about Hillary and the true history of the Democratic Party. Dinesh D'Souza uses a powerful technique of his own incarceration by political subversion to tell this powerful story. Mixed with video vignettes, powerful special effects, fine acting by individuals portraying American icons, and strategic interviews with the likes of Jonan Goldberg, Carol Swain and Peter Schweizer the viewer becomes entangled in a powerful and revealing storyline. The polarizing film portrays how Democrats see foreign policy not in terms of national interest, but in terms of personal profit. It is best said by my colleague Michael Johnson, “If everyone in this country saw this documentary, there would be no more Democratic Party. The Clinton's would be banished--or jailed. This explains why the Democrats want to dissolve our borders...because they need a new plantation where they can harvest slaves and votes. It is all about naked power, and exploitation, and they have been at this game since Andrew Jackson founded the party, and annihilated and corralled the American native population. “ My advice would be to make this film available widespread among Americans minorities!

D'Souza, like in his last film, spends and inordinate amount of time initially talking about himself rather than the actual subject of his film. D'Souza, who in 2012 coerced an employee to give a campaign contribution on his behalf and then asked his extramarital lover and her husband to do the same and was subsequently investigated and charged by the FBI when they noticed the suspicious activity, spends the first part of his film shifting the blame for his blatant crimes onto Obama. Despite this supposed conspiracy, for which no evidence was ever presented in court, D'Souza eventually gave up and pled guilty and was actually let off with an unusually lenient sentence. While sentencing guidelines called for him to spend 10-16 months (max 24) in prison, he only had to spend the night in a halfway house for 8 months. Yet D'Souza morphs this experience into a completely fictional account of his actual experience making it seem like he was indeed in prison night and day spending massive amounts of time around all sorts of criminals, when in reality he lived in his home in a rich part of San Diego 20 miles away, and at night he would come sleep at the halfway house. I was personally surprised by how much less the experience of teaching English as a second language, part of his community service, affected him than his supposed encounters with criminals in his dramatized lock up situation. D'Souza tries to create a bizarre analogy between a criminal gang he supposedly hears about in prison and the Democratic Party. This supposed gang would sign people up for life insurance and then murder them to collect the life insurance. Somehow the audience is just supposed to take D'Souza at his word that this is a good analogy for what the Democratic Party is doing. Only an hour or so later in the film does D'Souza even bother to loosely connect this story to anything that the Democratic Party has actually ever done. But when he does finally get around to making his awful analogy seem relevant, he carelessly drops a few scenarios like stereotypical notions of pay-to-play politics in Chicago under Mayor Daley, instead of actually making a point about any real systemic problems within the modern Democratic Party. But like I said, that's much later in the film. Once D'Souza finally shifts the focus onto something other than himself, as he wanders into this fictitious museum that supposedly exists at the Democratic Party headquarters in DC where he sneaks into a fictitious vault where he discovers: Republicans can't be racist because they are the party of Lincoln, and Democrats are the party of slave owning and raping, Native American murdering Andrew Jackson. For a while you're left with the assumption that D'Souza is just going to completely ignore the well known fact that the Republicans and Democrats have switched party platforms over time, but then D'Souza finally does take on that issue, however with his typical intellectual laziness. For D'Souza, he seems to be content to overturn the entire (well established and widely accepted) theory/observation that the two parties actually have switched platforms and geographical concentrations over time simply by cherry picking exceptions to the overall trend throughout history. In reality, this is a fascinating subject to learn about, but not when it is presented in such a thoughtless manner. D'Souza's main ally to promote this theory that the Democratic Party is truly the party of racists is Carol Swain, a black, conservative pundit, who essentially tows the line of presenting historical information that completely ignores the fact that eventually the two parties did in fact switch positions on everything from race to the role of government over time. Swain herself has been accused of intolerance and was in fact repeatedly the subject of protests when she worked at Vanderbilt. Over an hour into the film, one is left wondering if D'Souza will ever bother to talk about anything besides himself or the outdated views of the party platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties. But then the audience finally catches a glimpse of Hillary Clinton herself, the supposed subject of the film, when D'Souza tries to distort the reality of the birth control movement into a conspiracy about eugenics. Despite the fact that any serious amount of research will reveal that the movement's true nature was very different than D'Souza's account, he uses the fact that Margaret Sanger once gave a speech to woman of the KKK to completely mischaracterize the actual history of the birth control movement, ignoring the real relationship between Sanger and the black community. But at least we are finally moving toward the much anticipated focus on Hillary Clinton herself. But by this point the film is so far down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories that it is difficult to give any credibility at all to the baseless accusations that follow of Hillary and her husband essentially running con after con and raping women repeatedly. The whole film is a complete failure of thoughtful intellectualism. Instead of earnest endeavors to explore the actual policies Democrats and Republicans and examine the merits of those policies in the face of real problems in our society, D'Souza seems content to cherry pick from history and promote his favorite strategy of guilt by association. It's no wonder that D'Souza was inspired by Michael Moore. But sadly he goes even further off the deep end. D'Souza embodies everything that wrong with politics today. And he seems to completely miss the irony that some of the most serious allegations that he launches at his opponents, crime, distortion of facts, and self-enrichment, are his most defining characteristics.

Clearly biased in a conservative direction. But, I found it considerably less biased and just as poorly edited as any liberal production (Katy Couric, Diane Sawyer, CNN, et. al.) with substantially more useful historical context and substance that anything produced by Moore, Clinton campaign, DNC, etc. which were certainly designed to impress gullible cheer leaders: the end of this film does the same thing though only from the opposite perspective. D'Souza is a first-generation American citizen originally from India. . .with such qualities that would benefit the country. He's smart. But not smart enough to avoid a fraud conviction. So, he's also a convicted felon who plead guilty to illegal campaign contributions, i.e. fraud. Judge Richard Berman was appointed District Judge by Bill Clinton in 1998 and was the judge who sentenced D'Souza in May 2014 to eight months in halfway house, five years probation and $30,000 fine. Not sure how he was able to make this film while still on probation (?). Even though I agree with the political context and perspective in this production, I docked it one star due to the last ten minutes or so. That said, I really liked the way this ended simply because it opposed the status quo, i.e. the fix was in for the 2016 election and Hillary was going to be the next president. My problem with the ending was a matter of cheer leading: I don't like cheer leaders. Even the prettiest of them makes me wonder who they are when we're not looking. If the historical context is even half accurate, it should be taught this way. Over eleven administrations I've seen political parties vilify each other over social justice. Hell, I even bought into the narrative in the 60's believing that the civil rights movement was all about equality and justice. Who would ever have thought that it was all about orchestrated revenge, dominance and political manipulation (?). White folks were never taught useful history in school: black folks were far more vocally literate about their history even though very few might have been able to write it. And, here we are today with more division than ever, still cultivated by a political party convincing constituents of their hopeless victimhood designed to keep them on the plantations. I can only hope that those who voted for Obama TWICE because of his skin color learned something for themselves. Even with his bias and criminal record, D'Souza makes a far, far better point than the criminally insane who will never be convicted by judges that they seem to own. While the present administration certainly has warts, it was either providence or karma that kept the United States from another deceptive liberal democratic administration. It doesn't matter which.

Good DVD I would recommend anyone interested in current politics. Dinesh D'Souza has made a brilliant film and finally the truth comes to light.

Loved the DVD, very interesting...will watch it again

Very well done movie that gives an accurate account of the Democratic party in the US. Just a terrible history.

Spot on

This documentary is extremely well done, arduously researched, very accurate presentation of historical facts. Everybody should watch it whether they're Americans or not. Additionally, I strongly recommend "2016-Obama's America" and "America" done by the same author and producer Dinesh D'Souza. They're all based on accurate historical events. I found them quite educational and illuminating.