Homegrown Terrorists for President; Part II

By Jim Simpson

In the last installment I asserted that Hillary Clinton remains a greater threat as a potential presidential candidate than Barack Obama, and that she will likely get the nomination in the end. Despite Obama’s recent primary wins, and the pundits’ widespread agreement that Hillary’s candidacy is all but lost, I am not willing to write her off, and won’t until a stake is buried irrevocably into the heart of that bloodless vampire’s candidacy. One cannot underestimate the dishonest, duplicitous, Machiavellian nature of today’s Democrat party, nor of the Clintons’ uncanny ability to resurrect themselves. We can only hope…

A friend involved in campaign finance recently noted poll results that in the Pennsylvania primary, “nearly 30% of the Democrats who voted for [Hillary] would vote for McCain if that was their choice. Only 8% of her Pennsylvania supporters claimed they would go to Obama. Another chunk said they would stay home and something like 30+% said they were undecided.” Results in West Virginia reflected similar sentiments. While he has won the majority of primaries and the popular vote, Obama’s support remains very thin. This fact will be borne out again in today’s (Tuesday, May 20, 2008) Kentucky primary.

What is most striking about this campaign has been the wholesale renovation in Hillary’s public image. It borders on the surreal. She is widely viewed, even among Republicans, as the more moderate candidate. Polls show, for example that working class democrats, the supposed “Reagan democrats” have voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in recent primaries. A lot of Republicans, I am afraid, would be relieved to have her in place of Obama.

What did she ever do to deserve this? Answer: she voted for the War in Iraq. Of all the trite reasons to earn her the mantle “moderate.” Senate Democrats voted for the war 29 to 23, and in the Senate, Democrats were the majority party. They could have stopped the whole show in its tracks if they had really wanted. But this was an easy vote and the wiser one politically. War spirits were high following 9-11 and there was a widespread public feeling that Saddam needed to be removed. Democrats were on record decrying Saddam’s illegal stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), before G.W. Bush was even elected. President Clinton repeatedly warned Saddam to stop producing WMD. Why does no one remember this? Finally, Democrat senators who voted against the war were reflexive anti-war flakes like Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone.

The Clintons are and always have been acutely aware of political winds, and shift position accordingly. You can call this self-serving political calculus, which of course, it is. But it is also the type of tactical machinations typical of communists. Hillary Clinton has been paid back in spades by that one small defiance of liberal groupthink, in that she is now considered “moderate,” or absurdly, sometimes even “conservative.” Of course, the reality is quite different.

Little has been made of it, and Republicans seem to be suffering from amnesia, but Hillary has radical connections that dwarf those of Obama. Indeed, she has had a lifelong involvement with organizations of the American radical left. And those groups have supported terrorists worldwide since Lenin’s Bolsheviks launched the Third Communist International in 1919.

Start with her college thesis on radical organizer Saul Alinsky, which you can read in its entirety HERE. Among other things, Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, a how-to manual for forcing political change. Hillary’s main difference with Alinsky was tactical, in that she thought it possible to work within the “system” to accomplish these goals.

At Yale, she was introduced to Charles R. Garry, chief counsel and spokesman for the Black Panther Party, and as part of a class project arranged by her leftist law professor, “Tommy the Commie” Emerson, assisted in the defense of Bobby Seale and other Panthers then on trial in New Haven for the torture/murder of one of their own. The project was to monitor the trial for civil rights violations. According to Newsmax:

Hillary took charge of the operation, scheduling the students in shifts, so that student monitors would always be present in the courtroom… Some believe that the enormous pressure exerted by the Left helped ensure light sentences for the New Haven Nine. Whether or not this is true, the punishments were mild.

The article goes on to quote the Washington Times that:

‘The gunman, Warren Kimbro, got a Harvard scholarship and became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College…’ And ‘Ericka Huggins, who boiled the water for Mr. Rackley’s torture, got elected to a California school board.’

Doesn’t that explain a lot about the condition of our public schools!

Hillary’s efforts earned her an internship with lifelong radical and longtime communist party attorney, Robert Treuhaft, also deeply involved in defending the Panthers. One can observe it was only an “internship.” But why intern for a communist if you weren’t interested in the movement? More to the point, why would a prominent communist lawyer agree to mentor someone who wasn’t already a communist? As I have explained in an earlier post, Communists don’t waste their time with non-communists. There is no percentage in it for them and it can be a security risk.

Okay, so what? A radical in college. Weren’t we all? Well, no, but nothing changed after that. Her entire adult life has been committed to radical leftist causes, causes which at best see terrorists as modern-day “minutemen” and at worst, aid and abet them with political influence, legal and sometimes monetary support.

She graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. A mere one year later, as a staff lawyer for the House of Representatives Nixon impeachment inquiry, she was actively and deeply involved in efforts to subvert the entire process, activities for which she was fired. The entire episode was mindboggling, and has been covered extensively both by her Watergate boss, then Judiciary Committee chief lawyer, Jerry Zeifman, and in The Truth about Hillary, a book by former New York Times Magazine Editor-in-Chief, Ed Klein.

With eye-popping gall, she blatantly ignored the guidance of Zeifman, Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert and Majority Leader Tip O’Neill.

Hillary wrote a memo which recommended denying President Nixon the right to counsel – this from a supposed champion of civil rights – and then conspired to steal and hide court documents supporting this right! Zeifman knew of Hillary’s position beforehand, had explained the leadership’s views, and explicitly told her not to write such a memo, extracting a promise from her not to. In his own words, “She lied.”

She also recommended the House not hold hearings or depose live witnesses, or conduct any independent investigation – relying instead on prior investigations. She even went so far as to suggest that House rules should be changed to deny any Judiciary Committee members the right to question witnesses!

Every single recommendation was shot down.

Finally, she violated House rules on confidentiality by discussing the issue with her Yale law professor, Burke Marshall, who apparently gave her the ideas. There is much more, too much to cover in this article. You can see it all here.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry for Hillary Clinton, while covering most of her life in extensive and generally flattering detail, does not even mention her involvement in the Watergate hearings, an amazing omission, given its importance. Also, her major partner in crime on the Watergate committee was Bernard Nussbaum, also fired from the committee. Nussbaum later gained notoriety as the White House counsel who prevented investigators from searching Vince Foster’s office immediately following his death, and was accused by a Secret Service officer of removing documents. Birds of a feather, apparently.

The aforementioned Ed Klein believes that a major motivation in Hillary’s duplicity was to prevent Nixon from exposing the far worse crimes of the Kennedy Administration.

In the 1970s she also developed a friendship with Robert Borosage, one of the most notorious leftists in the United States. From 1979 to 1988 Borosage ran the Institute for Policy Studies, a long-time leftist think tank and communist front, whose Washington, D.C. office has been a gathering place for Cuban and Soviet agents. Chilean diplomat and undercover Cuban agent Orlando Letelier worked out of the IPS office until his assassination in 1974. Both Hillary and Bill have had extensive connections to this group, as documented by WorldNetDaily, here.

In 1977 President Carter appointed Hillary to the board of the Legal Services Corporation and in 1978 elevated her to Board Chair. LSC was created by Congress in 1974 ostensibly to provide legal assistance to the poor. Instead it became a hotbed of leftist political activity, with funds being used to support left wing political candidates and causes. Hillary presided over the greatest growth and some of the most notorious abuses in that organization’s history, abuses which prompted President Reagan to attempt to abolish it in the first year of his presidency. FrontPageMagazine says it best:

Under Mrs. Clinton’s leadership, LSC’s annual budget more than tripled, from $90 million to $321 million. LSC used these taxpayer funds in a variety of ways, most notably to print political training manuals showing “how community organizations and public interest groups can win political power and resources,” and to finance training programs that taught political activists how to harass their opposition. (Emph. mine) On one occasion, LSC contributed money to a mayor’s political campaign in Georgia on the pretext that those funds were being spent on “a project to educate clients about their rights and the legislative process.”

During Hillary Clinton’s years on the LSC board, the Corporation also worked to defeat a California referendum that would have cut state income taxes in half; called for the U.S. government to give two-thirds of the state of Maine to American Indians; paid Marxist orators and folk singers in a campaign against the Louisiana Wildlife Commission; joined a Michigan campaign to recognize “Black English” as an official language; and sought to force the New York City Transit Authority to hire former heroin addicts so as to avoid “discriminat[ing]” against “minorities” who were “handicapped.”

As the 1980 presidential election drew near, and it became clear that Ronald Reagan might defeat the incumbent Jimmy Carter, LSC redirected massive amounts of its public funding into an anti-Reagan letter-writing campaign by indigent clients. After Reagan was elected in November 1980, LSC immediately laundered its money — some $260 million — into state-level agencies and private groups so as to keep it away from the board that Reagan would eventually appoint. Hillary Clinton left LSC in 1981.

These are the kinds of corrupt, duplicitous tactics Hillary Clinton, at age 30, was already adept at and willing to use to further her radical left agenda. The LSC is study in and of itself — a model of how Leftist forces in this country use taxpayer funds to support their activities and keep fringe leftists gainfully employed. Reagan attempted to zero out the LSC budget, but predictably, Democrats in Congress, with the assistance of the American Bar Association, rallied to its cause. His efforts ultimately did lead to investigations into the agency and a significant curtailing of both its abuses and its budget.

Since then, funding for the organization has ebbed and flowed with the political fortunes of the left in Congress and the White House. Reagan and subsequent Republican administrations and Congresses have managed to reign in the LSC somewhat, but its rank and file remain firmly planted in the Left.

Hillary makes a big deal about her support for “children’s issues,” including penning “It Takes a Village.” (At least she takes credit for writing it, although it was probably ghost-written, like so many other Democrats’ books. But what would that matter? They all say the same thing and nobody reads them anyway.) Her views on children were first developed through her association with Marian Wright Edelman, the hard left founder of the Children’s Defense Fund. As a researcher with the Carnegie Council on Children, a job she secured through her association with Edelman, Hillary helped produce the report, “All Our Children,” which, according to Discover the Networks:

advocated a dramatic expansion of social welfare entitlements and a national guaranteed income — all in the name of children’s rights. Moreover, the report maintained that the traditional nuclear family was not inherently better than any other family structure, and that society had an obligation to honor, encourage, and support alternate family structures such as single-parent households. What really mattered, said the Council, was the network of professionals — teachers, pediatricians, social workers, and day-care workers — who would collectively play the most vital role in raising children properly. In short, the Carnegie Council preached that childrearing was less a parental matter than a societal task to be overseen by “public advocates” — judges, bureaucrats, social workers and other “experts” in childrearing — who could intervene between parents and children on the latter’s behalf. According to the report, the role of parents should be subordinate to the role of these experts. (Emphases, mine.)

Doesn’t this make you shudder? Hillary’s philosophies on children and the family show the marked influence of Antonio Gramsci, a prominent Italian communist whose writings heavily influenced her hero, Saul Alinsky as well. Gramsci believed that Western society could be undermined gradually and made ripe for communism through corruption of its cultural and religious institutions, especially the nuclear family.

The Clintons helped restore Jean-Bertrand Aristede to power in Haiti in 1994, using the American military to do so. Aristede was a hard-core communist who advocated use of the “necklace” on political enemies. “Necklacing” was a quaint device dreamed up in South Africa, where ANC guerillas would place a tire around the neck of opponents, douse it with gas and set it aflame. The Clintons’ beloved fellow “Democrat” was finally forced to flee Haiti in 2004, when his increasingly tyrannical methods, which included liberal use of the “necklace,” became too much for practically everyone on the island. Liberals used to remind me he was a “catholic priest,” but even then his true nature was apparent. Plenty of catholic priests have fallen under the spell of “Liberation Theology” and Aristede was no different. He probably would have gotten along well with the pedophiles too.

We are all familiar with the endless Hillary scandals during the Clinton presidency: Billing Gate (lost Rose Law Firm billing records), Cattle Gate (insider trading on cattle futures) Filegate (FBI files kept on prominent Republicans), Travelgate (vicious political vendetta against low level White House travel staff), and so on.

You can read a dated but entertaining listing of all the Clintons’ various “Gates” here, however few are aware of Hillary’s secret war against conservative internet bloggers. You can get a taste of that stuff here. This was a documented effort by the Clinton machine to muzzle conservative internet revelations about all their nefarious dealings. And there is little doubt a Hillary administration would move heaven and earth to accomplish what the Clintons failed to do before. Hillary’s “Be careful what you wish for, Rush,” warning to Rush Limbaugh was not an idle threat.

And if all of this isn’t enough for you, remember that Bill Clinton pardoned convicted Puerto Rican terrorists to help Hillary win the Latino vote in her New York senatorial campaign, never mind Hillary kissing Suha Arafat, wife of PLO leader Yasser Arafat! Note that I haven’t even gotten into the Clintons’ involvement with the Lippo Group, Chinese Communists, and Bill Clinton’s treasonous disclosures to the Communist Chinese of top secret nuclear weapons technology. There is just too much!

The history of Hillary’s involvement with the radical left is extensive. What I have divulged here is the tip of the iceberg. That it gets little play in the mass media is only due to the sad fact that many in the media are of the same mind.

Despite all the mixed messages, despite the occasional appearances of compromise and moderation, Hillary remains firmly committed to a communist future for this country. Never forget, the communist tactic is to do anything that will assure their ultimate victory. This includes proclaiming abiding faith in God, denouncing fellow communists (like Obama’s Weather Underground terrorist friend, William Ayers), even supporting the Second Amendment. Yes, Hillary was quoted by the Des Moines Register (as given on Alphecca.com): “I support the Second Amendment. Law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns…”

Despite hilarious attempts to delude gun owners with such statements, she wants all your guns. It is the only way she and her ilk can be assured of enforcing their way without serious resistance.

Hillary is a committed, hardcore communist, in the Bolshevik tradition. And if you’ve studied them as I have, you come to recognize that they are really more like insects than humans. Like a colony of army ants on the move, they destroy anything before them. Anything is allowable in pursuit of communism and anyone in the way is a potential target. That is why Hillary laughs with that inhuman cackle – because to become a committed communist you have to lose your humanity. It is the only way to deal emotionally with what you are doing. The rest of us mean nothing to her, and thus to engage us as though we do, and appear as a normal human is of necessity a stage act, and Hillary is a lousy actor.

Barack Obama as President would be a horrendous repeat of Jimmy Carter buffoonery, but with a more unified, effective left to promote his policies. We might possibly recover. As a much more effective, well-connected, devious, and ruthless person, however, Hillary would bring this country to the brink of disaster, and probably push it over the edge.

Posted by Jim Simpson

Jim Simpson is a freelance writer and former White House budget analyst and economist, who worked under Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. His articles have been published in the Washington Times, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune, Military Magazine and others.