Of all the Hillary Clinton scandals and cover-ups, none is more significant than her attempt to whitewash her own personal transformation from Goldwater girl to Marxist. No mainstream media organization has examined how she is determined in her new book to keep people in the dark about what Hillary biographer, the late Barbara Olson, described as her “roots in Marxism.”
“In her formative years,” explained Olson, “Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...”
Olson’s important 1999 book, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1999), remains the best account of Hillary’s communist connections and emergence as a “budding Leninist” who “understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost.”
As an example, Hillary’s book gripes that the end to her illegal closed-door health-care task-force meetings, where a socialized medicine scheme was hatched, was the result of her opponents citing an “obscure federal law” in court. Hillary, a lawyer, never wanted the law to get in her way.
Hillary’s book, Living History (Simon & Schuster), does attempt to explain her move from the political right to the left. But it stops far short of explaining her involvement with extreme left-wing groups and individuals in league with America’s enemies.
The book says that Hillary was the daughter of a staunch Republican and that, in high school, she read Senator Barry Goldwater’s book, The Conscience of a Conservative, and wrote a term paper on the American conservative movement. She dedicated it to her parents, “who have always taught me to be an individual.” She was a Goldwater supporter in 1964 and had “strong anti-Communist views,” she says. She also got deeply involved in the United Methodist Church, which “opened my eyes and heart to the needs of others…” Her conservative views persisted, however, into the time that she entered Wellesley College in 1965, where she served as president of the college’s Young Republicans during her freshman year. However, she says that she began having more doubts about the war against communism in Vietnam-doubts fed by a Methodist magazine she was receiving at college, as well as reports in the New York Times.
She moved on to Yale Law School in 1969, which was a hotbed of activity on behalf of the violently racist Black Panther organization. She writes that, “The world and its realities came crashing down on Yale in April 1970, when eight Black Panthers, including party leader Bobby Seale, were put on trial for murder in New Haven. Thousands of angry protesters, convinced the Panthers had been set up by the FBI and government prosecutors, swarmed into the city. Demonstrations broke out in and around campus. The campus was bracing for a huge May Day rally to support the Panthers when I learned, late on the night of April 27, that the International Law Library, which was in the basement of the law school, was on fire. Horrified, I rushed to join a bucket brigade of faculty, staff and students to put out the fire and to rescue books damaged by flames and water.”
So Living History portrays Hillary as someone who didn’t participate in the pro-Panther demonstrations but just tried to save some books from a fire.
Former sixties radical David Horowitz says that both Hillary Rodham and Bill Lann Lee, who later became President Clinton’s head of the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, helped organize the pro-Panther demonstrations at Yale. Others sympathetic to Hillary contend that she was merely among a group of law students who monitored the trial on behalf of the ACLU, which was concerned that law enforcement was violating the civil liberties of members of the party. But Hillary says nothing in her book about even this role.
What is not in dispute is that she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, a “progressive” alternative to the school’s traditional review, and that its fall 1970 issue was devoted to the trial and glorifying the Panthers.
During the summer of 1971, Mrs. Clinton writes in her book, she was a law clerk at the Oakland firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. “I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case,” she said. In fact, however, the public record shows that Clinton worked for Robert Treuhaft, a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and Harvard-trained lawyer for the party.
Citing public sources, Peter Flaherty’s book, The First Lady (Vital Issues Press, 1996), says that “Hillary was recommended to Treuhaft by some of her professors at Yale. She was looking for a ‘movement’ law firm to work at for the summer. As it turns out, Hillary would continue her association and support of the Black Panther cause while working as a law clerk for Treuhaft.” Flaherty notes that Treuhaft told Herb Caen of the San Francisco Examiner, “That was the time we were representing the Black Panthers, and she worked on that case.”
Mrs. Clinton’s involvement with Treuhaft is no secret, although Hillary clearly doesn’t want to talk about it. A New York Times obituary of Treuhaft, who died in 2001, said that he had “accepted a young Yale lawyer named Hillary Rodham (now Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) as an intern.” A British newspaper, the London Times, said that “generations of liberal lawyers were groomed under his [Treuhaft’s] tutelage, including a young Yale law student named Hillary Rodham.”
These two obituaries are posted at a website in honor of Treuhaft’s famous wife, British author Jessica Mitford, herself a member of the CPUSA whose lobbying of Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue was reportedly facilitated by Hillary.
The Harvard Law Bulletin said about Treuhaft: “He belonged to and served as attorney to the Communist Party of the United States for many years and defended the civil rights of groups such as the Black Panther Party, Vietnam War draft resisters, and members of Berkeley’s free speech movement.”
The London Times said Treuhaft and Mitford left the CPUSA in 1958 and that “Khrushchev’s denunciation of the crimes of Stalin had been influential in driving away lots of believers.” But Khruschev had denounced Stalin’s crime in February 1956. The Times said that “the Mitford/Treuhaft idea that the American Communist ideal should be an indigenous affair never took root,” suggesting they left the party not because of what Stalin did but because working through the CPUSA had proven to be ineffective in establishing a communist America. The British newspaper The Independent said that Treuhaft and Mitford continued to sing the Internationale, once the Soviet national anthem, after they left the party.
Barbara Olson reported, “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to-remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”
In her book, however, Hillary does write about some of her radical associates. She notes a meeting in 1969 with David Mixner of the Vietnam Moratorium Committee, an anti-Vietnam war protest group that came under investigation by the House Internal Security Subcommittee for its involvement with communists and backing from Hanoi. Mixner would go on to become a leading homosexual activist, adviser to and friend of President Clinton. He was credited with delivering some six million votes to Clinton in 1992.
Former conservative David Brock’s book, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, links Hillary with Robert Borosage, a Yale Law School graduate and one of the founders of the Yale Review, who would later become director of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Marxist think tank. Borosage is now co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a group trying to move the Democratic Party further to the political left.
Hillary writes about her involvement with the Children’s Defense Fund, headed by Marian Wright Edelman, but omits any mention of the New World Foundation (NWF). Hillary followed Edelman’s husband, Peter, as chairman of the NWF. Mrs. Clinton chaired the group during a time, 1982-1988, when it gave grants to the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, a front group for the communist terrorists; the National Lawyers Guild, a one-time-identified communist front; and the Christic Institute, an extreme left-wing group of lawyers which practiced “legal terrorism” against citizens, retired military and intelligence officials, and others who were perceived to be supporting the cause of freedom from communism in Central America.
Peter Flaherty writes, “Hillary’s official biography prepared by the ’92 Clinton campaign makes no mention of her stint as NWF chairman, despite the fact that she oversaw some $23 million in foundation assets. A few journalists, like Dan Wattenberg of The American Spectator, did report on the NWF grants during the summer of 1992, but the major media paid almost no attention. There was no need for Hillary to defend herself.”
Hillary also took advantage of Bill Clinton’s radical connections, many developed in his trips abroad. Strobe Talbott and Bill Clinton had been Rhodes Scholars in England together, for example, and Talbott and his wife, Brooke Shearer, “became friends of mine,” she writes. Brooke’s brother, Derek Shearer, another Yale graduate, became a friend of Bill and pro-Marxist economic adviser to Clinton.
Talbott, who also graduated from Yale and is now president of the Brookings Institution, became Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration. Before that, he had been a columnist for Time magazine, writing a July 20, 1992, column, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” that in the next century “nationhood as we know it will be obsolete,” that we would all some day become world citizens, and that wars and human rights violations in the 20th century had clinched “the case for world government.”
To help accomplish this, Talbott pressed for the use of the U.S. military to restore an extreme leftist, defrocked Catholic priest Jean Bertrand Aristide, to power in Haiti in 1994. Confidential documents from the U.N., publicized by AIM at the time, said that Talbott and other officials viewed an invasion as “politically desirable.”
Aristide, a Marxist-oriented advocate of Liberation Theology, had been booted from the presidency by the military because, among other things, he was inciting mobs to threaten to burn to death judges and legislators if they did not do his bidding.
Hillary’s book describes this as a case of “the elected President” of Haiti being returned to power “after a harrowing year of diplomacy and the landing of American troops.” But the book, Voodoo Politics by Lynn Garrison, tells a far different story, exposing Aristide as an anti-American figure not only allegedly involved in murder but drug trafficking. Garrison was an adviser to one of the generals involved in the anti-Aristide coup.
The political reasons for the invasion can be seen in the make-up of the “Aristide Foundation for Democracy,” whose board included left-wing Democrats such as Reps. Maxine Waters, John Conyers, and Joseph Kennedy, and former Rep. Michael Barnes.
Talbott’s global left-wing vision was endorsed by President Clinton, who had sent a June 22, 1993, letter to the World Federalist Association (WFA) when it gave Talbott its Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. In the letter, Clinton noted that Norman Cousins, the WFA founder, had “worked for world peace and world government” and that Talbott was a “worthy recipient” of the award.
Hillary doesn’t discuss communist Chinese financial contributions to her husband’s campaign for re-election, but she admits that the communist dictatorship wanted to use her appearance at a 1995 U.N. women’s conference in Beijing as “a public relations tool to improve its image around the world.” Hillary went anyway. She doesn’t mention that radical feminist and Marxist Bella Abzug played a role in getting her to go. Hillary was a big fan of Abzug, having hailed her work and career in a major speech at the U.N.
FBI files obtained by AIM identify Abzug as a member of the Communist Party USA. She ran for Congress but was opposed by the Socialist Party for having shown “a general unwillingness to be outspokenly critical of Communist actions threatening the peace and freedom of the world.”
Not too far from the five-star hotel where Hillary and the feminists were meeting in Beijing, baby girls and boys were being starved to death at Chinese orphanages.
Pictures of this brutality were smuggled out of the country by Human Rights Watch. One showed an emaciated 11-year-old girl tied down to a bed, withering away to nothing. A British film about the problem, The Dying Rooms, showed children tied to wooden toilets, sleeping in their own excrement.
The brutality reflects the Chinese policy of one child per family, enforced through mandatory abortions, sterilization, and outright killings. Hillary calls such a policy “barbaric” in her book but admits that in her speech to the conference she did not criticize China by name. Ironically, all of this is recounted in a chapter entitled “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights.”
For Hillary, the villains are not the Communists and fellow travelers but the “extreme conservatives” who oppose them. She rails against conservative talk-radio, suggesting that it played a role in provoking the 1994 Oklahoma bombing. This is a ridiculous charge that Bill Clinton had used in a brazen political attempt to discredit his political opponents on talk radio. Hillary takes it further, claiming that executed bomber Timothy McVeigh was a member of the “extreme right-wing” and had ties to “militant anti-government groups.” This is an exaggeration that borders on fantasy. McVeigh may have attended a meeting of a militia group at some time, and he did have some anti-government views stemming from the violent federal assault on the Branch Davidian religious compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993. But the evidence developed by McVeigh’s attorney, Stephen Jones, and other experts suggests that foreign terrorists may have ultimately been behind the Murrah Building bombing. However, the Clinton administration stopped the investigation and prosecution with McVeigh and his alleged partner, Terry Nichols, both of whom had served in the Army. Jones’ book, Others Unknown (Public Affairs, 1998), explores this, and terrorism analyst Laurie Mylroie, author of The War Against America (Regan Books, 2001), has also cited evidence of a foreign or even Iraqi role in the Oklahoma City bombing.
Mrs. Clinton, who abandoned her pro-Palestinian stance and became pro-Israel when she ran for the Senate, speaks out on foreign policy, confirming the role of co-president she assumed in domestic and foreign affairs. Her book defends the Clinton administration’s military campaigns on behalf of the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. She says the Bosnian Serbs were attacked because they “were besieging the Muslim town of Srebrenica in a frenzy of ‘ethnic cleansing.’” In fact, Srebrenica, a so-called U.N. “safe haven,” was being used to train and refurbish Muslim troops, and may have been serving as a base for foreign terrorists in the region. Hillary conveniently ignores the Clinton-approved “ethnic cleansing” by Croatian forces against the Serbs.
“I had spoken out strongly in favor of Bill’s leadership of NATO in the bombing campaign to force Slobodan Milosevic’s troops out of Kosovo,” a province of Yugoslavia, she says. But the House refused to authorize the bombing, making the intervention illegal. The bombing campaign, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, amounted to interference in a sovereign state that posed no threat to the U.S. Indeed, the bombing benefited the Kosovo Liberation Army, a group linked to al Qaeda. In Hillary’s book, though, President Clinton “sounded the alarm on global terrorism” and tried to get the “diabolical” Osama bin Laden.
In Rwanda, she writes, “rape and sexual assault were committed on a mass scale, tactical weapons in the genocidal violence that raged there in 1994.” Yet she also notes that Bill later “publicly expressed regret that our country and the international community had not done more to stop the horror” of perhaps one million dead. The program, Triumph of Evil, noted that the Clinton administration even hesitated to label it genocide.
With this record of devious pronouncements, Hillary reportedly wants to run for the White House some day.
Dick Morris, a former Clinton political adviser, said on July 21 that Hillary, lured by the drop in Bush’s ratings, might seek and win the Democratic nomination next year. Her background will be a problem for her, but even more damaging are the lies she has told about her close friend, Webb Hubbell, who went to prison for stealing from his partners and clients of the Rose Law Firm.
Hillary says in her book that she didn’t know Webb was in serious trouble until November 24, 1994. That is a lie. She and Bill had been told in March that Hubbell faced prosecution and that he should be ousted from the Justice Department. They promptly sought and got his resignation. Fearing he would reveal their darkest secrets, they and their aides set out to raise money to buy his silence. The final OIC report says he was paid $541, 750, ostensibly for his services, but he performed little or no work.
The claim that the Clintons didn’t know Hubbell was in deep trouble until November 1994 enabled them to say they had nothing to do with the solicitation of hush money because they didn’t know that Hubbell faced prosecution. The more that lie is publicized the more difficult it will be for the Clintons to return to the White House as President and First Mate. They should have been evicted when the hush-money scandal broke.
Send the enclosed cards or letters of your own choosing to David Martin of CBS, Barbara Walters of ABC and Tucker Carlson of CNN.
| CLIFF'S NOTES | By Cliff Kincaid |
THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO AIM REPORTS ANALYZING AND EXPOSING the lies in Hillary Clinton’s book, Living History. Most have focused on her transparent lies about when she learned of her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. Far more important is how Senator Clinton, a possible presidential candidate with a love of money and power, has covered up her Marxist roots. Hillary underwent an ideological transformation during the heyday of the New Left on campus that she doesn’t want to talk about. CNN Crossfire co-host Tucker Carlson made headlines by losing a bet that he would eat his shoes if Hillary’s book sold a million copies. Hillary then presented him with a big shoe. Our bet is the media will continue to let Mrs. Clinton off the hook about her relationship with communist lawyer Robert Treuhaft, the Black Panthers, and the New World Foundation. I hope we lose the bet. We suggest writing Carlson about pinning Hillary down on these critical matters.
IGNORING HILLARY’S LIES, THE MEDIA CLAIM TO HAVE NAILED PRESIDENT BUSH IN A BIG whopper over Iraq. Ralph Nader is saying Bush can be impeached over this. The media drumbeat culminated in a CBS Evening News story by defense reporter David Martin that has been seized upon by the left as proof that Bush has been caught in a deliberate lie. The story ran on the CBS News website under the headline, “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False.” The headline was later changed to, “Bush Knew Iraqi Info Was Dubious.” These headlines are false. This is all about Bush’s statement in the State of the Union address that, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The problem is that the CIA signed off on Bush’s statement without confirming it, and Director George Tenet said it shouldn’t have been in the speech. Martin’s story acknowledged the President’s statement was at least technically correct-because the British had made such a claim. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw insists they have “reliable intelligence” on this matter-not the forged documents which have also been in the news-which had not been shared with the U.S. That’s apparently because it was too sensitive to be provided to the CIA. We suggest writing to David Martin about this, asking why the CIA could not be trusted with this information. That’s the real story. It looks like another CIA failure. Since the end of the war, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who headed Iraq’s gas centrifuge program for enriching uranium, alerted journalists and former weapons inspector David Albright to nuclear parts he had hidden in his garden on orders from the former regime. CNN reports the CIA was slow to take note of this, too. Jack Straw noted that the report by Ambassador Joe Wilson, who investigated the matter on behalf of the CIA, confirmed that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation “sought the expansion of trade links with Niger-and that former Niger government officials believed that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake” or uranium oxide. Uranium is Niger’s main export. So why a controversy over 16 words in the State of the Union? The media-and the liberals-are looking for something to use against Bush.
THE MEDIA ARE ALSO MISREPRESENTING THE SITUATION IN LIBERIA. THEY SAY LIBERIA was founded by American slaves. False. The American Colonization Society, which wanted the slaves in Africa for their own good, bought the land, financed the settlements there, and ordered the slaves to declare independence. The Liberians made a mess of it, engaging in slavery of their own that became an international scandal in 1930. The Liberian Constitution prohibits non-blacks from becoming citizens or owning property. The media say Liberian President Charles Taylor is a dictator. He was freely elected in 1997. Taylor is a target because he interfered with U.N. plans to seize diamond mines in Sierra Leone in 2000. Taylor was supporting a rebel group there. A U.N. court with a prosecutor appointed by U.N. boss Kofi Annan has indicted him.
U.S. SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST IS A PRIME TARGET OF Hillary’s wrath in her book. Rehnquist is a conservative who was in the conservative dissenting minority in the recent Supreme Court decisions upholding affirmative action and homosexual rights. The attacks on Rehnquist reflect Hillary’s interest since her student days in capturing control of the legal system and using the courts to impose their radical “vision” on the rest of us. They have largely succeeded already. We only have three reliable conservatives on the court today-Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Columnist Robert Novak noted that conservative legal scholars have developed deep contempt for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was on the wrong side of both cases. He notes that when President Reagan was considering nominating her, there was documentary evidence of her liberal record when she was in the Arizona legislature. But a young Justice Department lawyer examined her record and cleared her, leading Reagan to tell social conservatives, “She’s all right.” That lawyer was Ken Starr, who became the Independent Counsel that failed to hold Hillary responsible for her crimes.
THE BARBARA WALTERS PROGRAM ABOUT “HILLARY CLINTON’S JOURNEY” EMPHASIZED how Hillary was raised as a Republican, but said nothing about her activities at Yale on behalf of the racist Black Panthers, her work with communist lawyer Robert Treuhaft, and chairmanship of the radical New World Foundation, which promoted communism in Central America. Hillary came across as spiritual, saying she prayed on her knees for God to save her marriage. We suggest writing to Ms. Walters about this glaring omission in her program. Hillary told Walters she wasn’t running for president. But Newsmax.com now reports that “sinking poll numbers for President Bush, continuing weakness in the U.S. economy, and the failure of a clear Democratic front-runner to emerge-all may be factors leading Mrs. Clinton to re-think her plans for 2004.” During a subsequent appearance on BBC Channel 4’s “Richard and Judy Show,” Mrs. Clinton was pressed on whether she might run and said, “You never know what might happen.”
IF MRS. CLINTON WINS THE PRESIDENCY, BILL CLINTON PRESUMABLY BECOMES THE “First husband,” where he’ll have another opportunity to evaluate White House interns. He would also have another opportunity to affect policy. In a June 14 article on how Bill Clinton made $9.5 million from speeches in 2002, the Washington Post noted in passing that he got $300,000 from a group called “the Australian Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, which the Central News Agency in Taiwan describes as a ‘pro-Beijing organization.’” Clinton spoke to a conference in Australia in February 2002 sponsored by the council. The American Foreign Policy Council quotes sources in Taiwan as saying that the group is a “typical international United Front” operation conducted by Beijing against Taiwan, and that its conferences are subsidized by Beijing through pro-communist individuals and organizations. Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng had urged Clinton to pull out of the conference because it was a front for the communists. He said Beijing was spending $1 million on the conference, including the fee for Clinton. A spokesman for the group denied being backed by Beijing. Our media don’t show any interest in whether the communists in China are funneling money to our ex-president through a front group. Hillary isn’t asked about it, either.
A RECENT AIM REPORT NOTED THE THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM LATIN AMERICA, INCLUDING the pro-communist Brazilian President Ignacio “Lula” da Silva. Lula has since been in the White House talking trade with President Bush, even as the July issue of The American Legion magazine was hitting homes with an article by Paul Crespo entitled “The Other Axis of Evil”-on how the leaders of Brazil, Cuba and Venezuela are collaborating in an anti-American hub. This is an excellent treatment of the problem. Meantime, the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady noted that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s “most tenacious adversary,” the decorated Venezuelan Army General Enrique Medina Gomez, has been denied a visa by the U.S. State Department to visit the U.S. on the grounds that he is suspected of involvement in “terrorist activity.” No evidence has been produced for this sensational charge. The New York Times said the general’s visa has been revoked because he has called for the overthrow of Chavez. This is incredible. Chavez should be overthrown. He is a threat to his own people, the hemisphere and the U.S. Whose side is the State Department on?