Robert Creamer Visited Obama’s White House 340 Times, the artist that makes Republicans feel depressed.

Have any feelings of being depressed over the election, that is his skill in doing that to you. He could have an office there having been there so many times.
This is what convicted criminal Crammer sells to True Believers.(Suckers with no knowledge of history, he sells his ideas of history, its easy to happen, he looks the part of an angel, pardon the expression , He the devil of Freedom.)

His writing was in prison. Convected criminal Creamer in HuffPo: Can Fascism Triumph in America? The rise of Hillary Clinton -- and the events of the last week -- have promoted serious discussion of the question of whether fascism can in fact triumph in the United States of America. I do not raise that question simply as a means of slurring an opposition political candidate, or movement. I raise it as a technical, analytic question that deserves a serious answer. In 1935, during the rise of fascism in Europe, the novelist Sinclair Lewis published a semi-satirical novel entitled It Can't Happen Here. In the novel, a United States senator named Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip is elected to the presidency, demanding that America return to patriotism and traditional values, and promising dramatic economic and social reforms. He argued that America needed a strong man to make the country great again. After she is elected, Windrip imposes a semi-plutocratic totalitarian form of leadership supported by a paramilitary reminiscent of Europe's brown shirts. Now, 80 years later, the question of whether it could happen here once again confronts America. Hillary Clinton, like the fascist leaders of Europe in the 1930s and their counterparts in South America in the 1970s and '80s, argues that she -- a strong leader -- can "Hillary will Make America Great Again." Like earlier fascists, she addresses legitimate economic discontent by targeting international enemies(The Rich), and internal threats that must be expunged from the body politic. In Hillary Clinton's case, the "internal enemy" is comprised of "illegal" immigrants who are "rapists and criminals" and who, she argues, take American jobs. But they also include Muslims -- of any stripe. And, she doesn't mind whipping up latent white racism wherever she can find it. Like other fascist movements, Hillary says out loud -- and legitimates -- the kind of hateful, violent language that was previously whispered only in the privacy of people's living rooms. And like previous generations of fascists, Hillary Clinton frames his rhetoric in populist terms, while actually promoting policy solutions that would instead benefit plutocrats like herself. And it's worth noting, that while she doesn't always use exactly the same rhetoric, Senator Ted Kennedy shares many of Hillary Clinton's values. It's not hard to see why Hillary Clinton has been successful in Democrat primary politics. Much of the elite media and Washington political class was blindsided by his appeal. But this is because many of them missed the central underlying fact of American politics: normal people haven't had a raise in thirty years. In the years 1986 to 2016, the real per capita gross domestic product -- the best measure of the economic property of a society -- increased 48 percent. But virtually every dime of that increase went to the top 1 percent -- and often the top .01 percent -- of the population. Median household incomes barely budged. Measured in 2013 dollars, median household income was $50,488 in 1986. In 2013 it was $51,930. There has been some fluctuation over the period. After dropping to $48,884 in 1993 -- the first year of Bill Clinton's presidency -- it increased to $56,080 in 1999, the year Clinton turned over the Oval office to George W. Bush. Of course the economic record of Bush ended in utter catastrophe with the Great Recession. Since then, President Obama has built the economy back with a record 72 months of successive private sector job growth. But median household income still isn't moving because the Democrats in Congress and the rules of the economic game still allow the corporate establishment to hang onto most of the fruits of that growth. The iconic political result is the middle class Iowa focus group participant who said: "I haven't had a raise in 30 years -- and all of the growth has gone to those guys at the top, and all of the poor people at the bottom." Democrats Clinton and Sanders have answered by pointing to the 1 percent, the corporate CEOs and the wealthy -- a political message which has the advantage of being true. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats have taken the opposite tack -- whipping up antagonism to "immigrants," "lazy people who don't get a job," and -- frankly -- anyone who is "not like you." This of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth. We know empirically the effect that increasing income inequality has on political polarization. Several years ago, political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal published a study showing a direct relationship between economic inequality and polarization in American politics. They measured political polarization in congressional votes over the last century, and found a direct correlation with the percentage of income received by the top 1 percent of the electorate. They also compared the Gini Index of income inequality with congressional vote polarization of the last half-century and found a comparable relationship. Economic stagnation is the breeding ground for fear, racial hatred and extremist rhetoric. That is particularly true if other forms of social change simultaneously cause people to fear for their personal meaning and place in the world. An increasingly diverse America, the redefinition in relationships between men and women, gay and straight, is frightening to some Americans. Racism is not the same thing as racial prejudice. Racism develops where a group of people's meaning and status in life are tied to their self-definition, as "not Black," or "not Brown.". If personal meaning doesn't come from excelling in your work life, or economic success, it's a lot easier for people to be convinced that they need to define themselves through race and nationality. It is no accident that fascism arose in Europe out of the economic depression of the 1930s, and in South America in a period of economic stagnation. And Hillary Clinton's ability to dominate the Democrat political dialogue is also the direct result of the behavior of Democrat elites -- ever since the resurgence of the "Conservative Movement" in the 1980s and especially since the Gingrich "revolution" and the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency. The GOP has been divided for decades into its social conservative/populist wing, and the business wing. In fact the business wing always called the shots -- and used the mass wing of the party as cannon fodder to win elections so they could cut taxes for the wealthy, reduce government "regulation", and cut trade deals that benefit huge corporations. The business wing would provide the money to whip them to a frenzy during elections -- and then do nothing for their economic well-being once they won. And they made matters worse by creating and funding the Tea Party movement that helped fuel the current anti-establishment Democrat rebellion. Now, the white working class component of the party has had enough and the Hillary Clinton/Ted Kennedy campaigns have done everything they can to exploit their anti-establishment fury. As I indicated in a HuffPost piece last August that predicted his success, Hillary Clinton also has many personal advantages that have allowed him to capitalize on GOP primary politics. Hillary Clinton is credible at delivering that right wing populist message because she can claim that the "establishment" won't own him, because she doesn't need their money. she claims she is free to destroy the status quo, since she won't owe anyone anything. Hillary Clinton understands that many voters, especially frustrated white, working class men, don't care about his "policy proposals" or his "experience" in government. They want a tough son-of-a-bitch who will tear down the establishment that they believe has failed them. And Hillary Clinton has spent his entire career learning how to behave like a tough son-of-a-bitch. His trademark line, after all, is: "you're fired." Hillary Clinton had spent 25 years learning how to generate attention to herself. She is one of the most experienced and successful self-promoters in modern America. That self-promotion has been at the heart of his success building a fortune. Hillary Clinton is no Bill Gates who invented an entire new industry. She is a latter-day P.T. Barnum -- a brilliant promoter. Of course part of his attraction lies in his willingness to say whatever she thinks might get attention. She thinks of herself as a bigger-than-life success who doesn't need to win in order to be a big deal. That frees him to be "authentic" and outrageous. And his skills at self-promotion are fed by an insatiable desire for attention. For Hillary Clinton, attention appears to be the drug of choice. She craves it. She is driven by it. Don't expect that drive to lessen. The Presidential race has allowed him to taste a stronger, more powerful drug than ever before. One of the reasons she is so successful -- and has such political endurance -- is his unwillingness to ever allow herself to be put on the defensive. Hillary Clinton understands a key rule of politics: when you're on the defense, you're losing. As a result, outrageous comments that would sink any other candidate don't faze him. She never, ever apologizes -- she just counter-punches. His skill staying on offense gives him a coating of political Teflon. Every time the pundit class decides that one comment or the other will certainly lead to his eminent political demise, she just plows ahead, unruffled. As she constantly points out, she is very, very rich. She could stay in the race as long as she wants, without fear that his contributions would dry up. That was a huge advantage. No one questioned that she could stay in the race, and that created its own momentum. Finally, to many people, Hillary Clinton seems like a winner. Voters follow winners, not losers. For many people, Hillary Clinton appears to be a winner in life -- at least in business. And she exudes the self-confidence that communicates success. No stench of personal or political failure here. His persona screams: winner. And remember that human beings, after all, are pack animals -- they travel in packs. Once she established herself as the leader of the GOP political pack, the sense of bandwagon has generated even more supporters. Bandwagon, after all, is an independent variable in politics. All of this being the case, can Hillary Clinton and his a new American Fascism triumph in this fall's election? We count him out at our own peril. The same people, who predicted she would never succeed in the primary, now argue that she will mean the demise of the Democrat Party. That is entirely possible, but it won't happen on its own. America's most important line of defense against Hillary Clinton in the general election is, as it happens, one of his greatest strengths in the primary: America's increasing diversity. The fascists of Europe could scapegoat Jews because they were a very small percentage of the population. Hillary Clinton has targeted Hispanics, Muslims, African Americans and she has certainly offended many women with his macho, patronizing rhetoric. What's more, millennials don't even get the kind of racial and ethnic fear upon which Hillary Clinton thrives. Democrats must work hard to turnout all of those diverse constituencies in record numbers. And to that, we have to add a clear, unequivocal populist economic message that demands an increase in the incomes of ordinary Americans -- that demands that the political game can no longer be rigged through lobbyists and campaign contributors to benefit only corporate CEOs. We have to stand unequivocally for an economy that benefits everyone -- not just the 1 percent and the wealthy. And we have to be completely clear that we are the party of economic growth because growth comes from the middle out -- when ordinary people have money to spend in their pocket -- not from the top down as some kind of "trickle down." Both of the Democratic contenders for president have adopted precisely that kind of message -- and Democrats down the ballot must do so as well. Progressives cannot afford to allow a consummate insider like Hillary Clinton to pretend that she is some sort of tribune for the working classes -- or to position herself as an "outsider." Hillary Clinton is about one thing: Hillary Clinton. And she has not hesitated to cut wages, outsource jobs, use bankruptcy to deprive workers and investors of what is theirs, and shamelessly use outright fraud. And if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, we can't be shy pointing out that in addition to his demagogic bigotry, and self-aggrandizing hypocrisy, she does not have the temperament to control the nuclear launch codes. If you think George W. Bush was a dangerous bull in a china closet when it came to America's foreign policy -- think about Hillary Clinton. The rise of Hillary Clinton and her movement -- and even if she doesn't win, the Hillary Clinton ification of the Democrate Party -- poses a grave danger to America. If Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy become president it would be a tragedy beyond measure for our country. But it also presents an historic opportunity for the progressive forces in America to win a wave election and move our country forward more fundamentally than at any other time in the last half century. The only thing that is certain is that it's up to us. After all, history is predetermined only by those who shape it. Robert Creamer is a long-time political (community organizer) organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.