BOOKS AND ARTICLES 0N POLITICS
By
JERRY ZEIFMAN
Former Chief Counsel
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House or Representatives
Most Recent Posting 12/15/2008
(c) All rights reserved
What Did Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel Know?
And When Did They Know It?
BY Jerry Zeifman
Under the United States Criminal Code employees of government agencies have a
legal duty to report knowledge of crimes to the Attorney General. Although that
statute may not be applicable to members of Congress and their staffs, every public
servant from whom a bribe is solicited also has such a duty.
That ethical standard was enunciated as far back as the 18th Century by English
parliamentarian Edmund Burke―a political ally of our founding fathers―who led the
impeachment of a corrupt governor of India, Warren Hastings.
Burke noted: “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that enough good men do
nothing.” In application of that standard the above questions had been posed in 1974
regarding President Nixon’s Watergate scandals by Republican Senator Howard
Baker and his Counsel Fred Thompson.
Sadly, both Watergate and the Blagojevich scandals are reminiscent of James
Madison’s prescient observation that “A popular government, without popular
information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy;
or, perhaps both.”
In my view, history is repeating itself. Like Watergate the Blagojevich scandals are
likewise a tragedy and farce. At the time of Watergate, the Democratic Party and the
mainstream media benefited from the tragedy and farce described in the book and
movie “All the President’s Men.” Ironically, these days, our Democratic Party and its
media allies are at the other end of the scandal stick.
The painful truth is that Barack Obama, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and some of
their supporters in the media have known former Congressman Blagojevich
personally and been his political allies for several years. In his 2002 and 2006
campaigns for governor they marched in solidarity and basked publicly in mutual
admiration media performances with him.
Also, after Blagojevich won the governorship in 2002 Emanuel became his
replacement in Congress. Emanuel, a protégé of Chicago Mayor Daily, then helped
to groom Obama's rise to fame in the Senate and eventually to the Presidency
To date both Obama and Emanuel are avoiding public comment on when during
their eight year lock step alliance with Blagojevich they first saw or heard any
evidence of evil in him.
In my view, one of the tragedies of modern politics is that in the modern mainstream
media there are “spin artists” allied with one political party or another who pander to
politicians by not giving the access to the truth about their evils.
At the same time it is likewise also farcical that some of the mainstream media
journalists who previously demonised George Bush often write about Blagojevich’s
corruption without identifying him as a Democrat. They also speak no evil of Obama
and Emanuel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book By Democratic Chief Counsel Exposes Why
Hillary Clinton Is "Ethically Unfit to Hold Public Office.”
Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Jerry Zeifman, a former counsel to the House Judiciary Committee for 17 years,
takes you to a behind the scenes account of Hillary Clinton, in a book based
on his personal experiences in dealing with her. In 1974, he had supervisory
authority of a staff that included Hillary Rodham – who was then engaged in a
variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules. In 1998, as
consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President
Clinton, he gained extensive personal insights into the unethical practices of
Hillary Clinton in her White House “West Wing” office.
A lifelong Democrat, Jerry Zeifman has concluded that Hillary Clinton is ethically
unfit to be either a Senator or President – and if she were to become President,
the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt,
Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.
Availability of Hillary's Pursuit of Power
Digital Edition $4.90
Autographed Paper back $14.90
Or send check or money order to:
Marianne Zeifman
Walnut Tree Hill Rd, Sandy Hook, CT 06482
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIOR BOOK by Jerry Zeifman
Without Honor: Crimes of Camelot
and Impeachment of President Nixon
collectors item
Out of print hardback first edition $13.00 (free shipping)
Autographed and inscribed to purchaser if requested
Or send check or money order to Marianne Zeifman
32 Walnut Tree Hill Rd., Sandy Hook, CT 06482
REVIEWS
Publishers Weekly: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974
that Nixon be impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry,
according to this blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee
during the impeachment inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the
inquiry, intentionally orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough
investigation of the Nixon administration's government-sponsored crimes would let
out of the bag Kennedy- era sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national
security… Finally, Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First
Lady) helped Doar gain control over the investigation through unethical tricks and
faulty legal opinions
John Dean: The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon
be impeached was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to
this blistering expose. Zeifman was chief counsel to the committee during the
impeachment inquiry… He charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry,
intentionally orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation
of the Nixon administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag
Kennedy- era sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national security…
Finally, Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First Lady) helped
Doar gain control over the investigation through unethical tricks and faulty legal
opinions. Jerry Zeifman..provides unique, often startling insights into the incomplete
impeachment of Richard Nixon. I found this book to be a real page turner… It
provides missing information that cannot be ignored by students of the period, the
Nixon presidency, Watergate, and Congress.
Saul Bellow (Nobel Laureate) I got a kick out of Without Honor. I liked it a lot. I
sometimes try to imagine myself functioning in the political circles of Washington. I
wouldn't have had the patience to cope with it. They would have had to send me
home in a wheel chair.
Edward Mortimer (Financial Times) The story is utterly fascinating and the
extraordinary quotes from his diary taped at the time surely make it a primary
source of considerable importance.
Henry Hyde (Chairman, House Judiciary Committee) After I started Jerry
Zeifman’s extraordinarily insightful book I could not put it down -- and finished it in
one sitting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Articles
by
Jerry Zeifman
Sarah Palin Battles Energy Cartels
After retiring as the Democratic Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee
and its Subcommittee on Monopolies, I was retained from 1975 until 1980 by
both Republican Governor Hammond and the legislature of Alaska as a non-
partisan consultant on the taxation and regulation of multi-national oil companies.
In my view, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has had by far more personal
experience in battling multinational energy cartels than any current members of
Congress. She is also the first elected official in Alaska to successfully wage
such battles since Jay Hammond.
Under Jay Hammond Alaska instituted tax measures treating international
monopolies as “unitary businesses” and measuring their tax base as a portion of
their worldwide income. He also oversaw the creation of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline and the famous Alaska Permanent Fund, which invested oil royalties to
cover future state budgets, and has since the early 1980s also paid out annual
dividends to residents of the state of Alaska.
In 1976 Congress enacted the Rodino, Scott, Hart Act (15 USC 15(c), which
permitted states to bring decentralized enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Under Presidents Carter and Clinton multinational energy cartels then enjoyed
de facto immunity from federal anti-trust enforcement. As a result multinational
conglomerates enjoyed the advantages of OPEC’s price fixing which under our
anti-trust laws would be a felonious conspiracy.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over monopolies, was
chaired from 1981 until 1995 by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, who also
conducted no oversight whatsoever over anti-trust enforcement and acquiesced
in the de facto immunity of energy cartels from anti-trust enforcement.
From 1983 to 2003, by making substantial campaign contributions to Democrats
and Republicans alike, multinational cartels became the sacred cows in both
Alaska and Washington and enjoyed de facto immunity from both federal and
state regulation. In that regard, Frank Murkowski, who in 2003 became the first
Republican Governor since Jay Hammond, perpetuated a corrupt status
quo.
From 2003 to 2004 Sarah Palin served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission, until resigning in protest over what she called the "lack of ethics" of
fellow Republican Governor Murkowski. After she resigned, she exposed the lack
of ethics of the state Republican Party's chairman, Randy Ruedrich, one of her
fellow Oil & Gas commissioners. Mrs. Palin filed formal complaints against both
Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who both resigned.
During her tenure as Governor of Alaska Mrs. Palin, with no aid from federal anti-
trust enforcers, has fought alone in the front line of the battle against
multinational energy cartels. While Congressional Democrats have capitulated to
the oil cartels, she has increased taxes on their OPEC induced profits, launched
a gas pipeline, balanced Alaska’s budget, and also remitted earnings from oil
royalties to Alaska’s citizens.
Hopefully, as John McCain’s Vice President Mrs. Palin will help revive the
Progressive Republicanism of Theodore Roosevelt, who was a staunch
advocate of the conservation of all of our natural resources and destroyed the
monopoly of Standard Oil of New Jersey and some 40 other cartels.
Starting in 1932, with his cousin Theodore as his “trust buster” role model,
President Franklin Roosevelt established a tradition of anti-trust enforcement in
our Democratic Party that survived until 1980 with the election of Jimmy Carter.
In my view, the capitulation of my party to international cartels and other special
interests warrants not only the election of McCain-Palin but also the shedding of
our Democratic Party of its present corrupt leadership.
Eleanor Roosevelt Ponders the Oil Crisis
Published August 6, 2008 in NewsMax.com
On Feb. 22, 2008, I published an article on www.zeifman.com about a dream I
had in which Eleanor Roosevelt decried the pandering by a majority of the
Congressional Black Caucus to white political leaders. Recently,
Congresswoman Waters, a member of the caucus, advocated a federal takeover
of the oil companies.
On the night the House recessed for a month in a stalemate over high oil prices,
Mrs. Roosevelt came again to me in a dream. Our conversation follows.
Zeifman: What are your thoughts on Maxine Waters and her proposal?
Roosevelt: I have the highest regard for her commitment to enhancing the lives
of African-Americans, for which she has a 100 percent approval rating in
Harlem's New Amsterdam News, unlike Barack Obama who, for pandering to
white political leaders, was graded as among their "lowest achievers."
Much as I disagree with her opposition to the Iraq war, I support her
recommendation. It is the same measure relied on by Winston Churchill and
Franklin Roosevelt during two world wars.
Zeifman: Please elaborate.
Roosevelt: At the beginning of World War I, as first lord of the admiralty,
Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, as assistant secretary of our Navy,
considered the nationalization of the Anglo Iranian Oil company as essential to
ensure oil supplies for our warships. To obviate the need to put its executives
and employees on government payrolls this was done simply by Britain's
acquisition of more than 50 percent of the company's stock.
The company's name was eventually changed to British Petroleum and its
nationalization continued through and past World War II. It was not until after we
won the Cold War that the Thatcher government inadvertently permitted foreign
investors to acquire a majority of its stock.
Since then British Petroleum acquired some 1,500 worldwide subsidiaries and
now operates out of the control of any single nation as well as NATO, the
European Union and the United Nations.
Zeifman: What about its operations in the United States?
Roosevelt: In 1969, British Petroleum discovered oil on the Alaskan north slope.
Soon thereafter it acquired Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) and operates in Alaska
under that company's name. By 1982 Sohio's American operations provided
almost 80 percent of the BP world wide profits.
BP now enjoys the advantages of OPEC's price fixing, which under our anti-trust
laws would be a felonious conspiracy if carried out in the United States.
American companies would be illegal under our anti-trust laws.
Also by closing down its American refineries and pursuing OPEC's more
profitable price-fixed end of the oil market, BP has now become the world's
biggest speculator and "spot" trader in oil futures.
Zeifman: Are you suggesting that Maxine Waters has no partisan motives in
advocating the take over of oil companies?
Roosevelt: I am not unaware that she, like Barack Obama and most Black
Caucus members, are partisan demonizers of the Bush presidency. But she
should have a right, like everyone else in government, to have her
recommendations considered on their merits. I am also dismayed that her
detractors are assailing her with such epithets as "marxist" and "commie" —
which were also used by opponents of both Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin
Roosevelt to disparage their anti-monopoly policies.
Zeifman: If she were to seek your advice, what would you suggest she do to get
her proposal enacted?
Roosevelt: I would urge her to win the co-sponsorship of Congressman John
Conyers who was one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus and
now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over anti-
monopoly legislation. With his help and that of the Black Caucus they could then
form a non-partisan coalition of middle and low income oil consumers who agree
to allow domestic drilling, but only by independent American companies that are
totally free of foreign control.
Zeifman: Do you believe that she and John Conyers would do that?
Roosevelt: It seems to me that since the Carter presidency British Petroleum
and other international cartels have used their enormous wealth power to
become sacred cash cows to both Democrats and Republicans by contributing
millions to their campaigns.
As a result, unlike former Democratic Judiciary Chairmen Rodino and Celler,
John Conyers has no record as a "trust buster." If he were his Subcommittee on
Monopolies would be investigating the contributions of international cartels to
campaign financing.
In that regard , BP is a leading purveyor of a propaganda to convince unwary
envonmentalists that the international oil cartels are on the side of Nancy Pelosi
and the planet saviors. For example, on its Web site http://conservation.bp.com,
BP shows a map of each of their worldwide subsidiaries and characterize each of
them as part of a "Conservation Leadership Programme (CLP)" which contributes
millions of dollars in support of conservation.
I also doubt that John Conyers, who is currently preoccupied with considering the
possibility of impeaching President Bush, would defy Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who
imposes what Jefferson denounced as "tyranny of the majority," by not even
allowing the drilling question to be debated in the House chamber.
Zeifman: Do you foresee any possibility of nationalizing oil companies in the
future?
Roosevelt: It has been my experience that in time of crisis, divine providence has
always managed to save our democracy through the kind of nonpartisan foreign
policies that in 1940 caused the Republican presidential candidate Wendell
Wilkie, known as "the barefoot boy from Wall Street," to defy the anti-war
America First movement and declare, "Politics ends at the waters edge."
Although the current media regards anti-trust enforcement as a left-wing
Democratic policy the truth is that the greatest opponent of monopolies in our
history was Theodore Roosevelt. Known as the "trust-buster," he was the first
president to successfully invoke the Sherman Antitrust Act against international
cartels. He was also responsible for indicting 45 corporations for violation of anti-
trust laws.
I am confident that, as president, John McCain, who proudly describes himself as
a "progressive Theodore Roosevelt Republican," will have the spine to enter into
a nonpartisan coalition to nationalize domestic oil production as a means of
preserving our national security and environment.
Jerry Zeifman is a former chief counsel of the House Judiciary Committee and
its Subcommittee on Monopolies.
Eleanor Roosevelt Decries New York Times’ Unfairness to McCain
© Copyright by Jerry Zeifman 2008
On December 19, 2007 I published an article in Newsmax,com, “Eleanor
Roosevelt’s Thoughts on Hillary,” based on a dream I had in which I
interviewed Eleanor Roosevelt. Last night the former First Lady came again to
me in a dream. Following is our conversation.
What are your thoughts on the current controversy between Senator John
McCain and the New York Times regarding the Iraq War?
Eleanor Roosevelt: I am dismayed by the recent refusal of the Times to
publish an article by Senator McCain in rebuttal to its prior Op-ed article by
Senator Obama advocating time tables for troop withdrawals from Iraq.
However, I am not surprised. It seems to me that when Arthur Schulzberger Jr.
took over the ownership of the Times in 1992 it lost its moral compass .
Please elaborate.
Eleanor Roosevelt: The Times was a fine paper during the presidencies of
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George Bush Senior. At that time Abe
Rosenthal served as its top editor. Its then owner and publisher was Arthur
Ochs Sulzberger, whose nickname was “Punch.” During that period the Times
had a good reputation and won a Pulitzer prize.
Abe Rosenthal had started out as an office boy and stayed with the Times for 55
years. As editor he did not express opinions based on undisclosed “reliable
sources” and documented his editorials with undistorted facts. As a result he
was respected on both sides of the political aisle.
As a young man, “Punch” Schulzberger, like his close friend, Art Buchwald, a
famous humorist who was later banned from the Clinton White House, had
enlisted voluntarily in the Marine Corps during World War Two. In 1951, after
earning a B.A. degree in English, he was recalled to active duty during the
Korean War. He took charge of the Times in 1963. During his tenure the
Times won a Pulitzer Prize. He served with distinction until 1992, when he
retired and gave control of his son Arthur Schulzberger Jr.
What are your thoughts on Arthur Jr’s reasons for changing the Times?
Eleanor Roosevelt: Sadly, I see him as a bad apple who fell far from his
father’s tree. When Bill and Hillary first launched their “two for one” campaign
for the presidency, Arthur Jr. decided that it would be financially profitable for
him to hitch the Times’ wagon to the two rising stars. After that he considered
enemies of the Clinton as his enemies.
For example, he soon fired Abe Rosenthal for writing an article critical of
Hillary, stating: “In concept the First Ladyship is an affront to American
democracy. In practice it skews the administration of government, evades anti-
nepotism statutes and avoids the responsibility that should go with authority …
In lieu of salary it provides the jobholder with staff., luxury, and that most
important of all perks – power.”
What do you think of the Times coverage of the presidency of George
W. Bush?
Eleanor Roosevelt: Just as arms dealers profiteer from military wars, it seems
to me that Arthur Jr. has been profiteering from inciting culture wars. For
example, Arthur Jr. allied himself with MoveOn.org, which started by
petitioning Congress to "move on" past the impeachment of President Clinton.
Together Arthur Jr. and MoveOn.org became the media’s leading practitioners
of the politics of personal destruction.
I was chagrined, but also not surprised, months ago when the Times published
a full page advertisement by MoveOn.org, maligning General David Petraeus
as “General Betray Us.” It also favored M0ve0n.org with a price of $77,508,
when its regular price for all other advertisers was $142,083. At that time
Arthur Jr’s tactics caused the Democratic controlled Senate to adopt a
resolution by a vote of 72 to 25, condemning the attempt at character
assassination of General Petraeus -- whose then recent appoint had been
unanimously confirmed.
Whom do you currently support for President?
Eleanor Roosevelt: As you know, during our party’s primaries I opposed
Senator Clinton, who was endorsed by the New York Times. I then supported
Senator Obama as the lesser of two evils. However, in the current presidential
campaign, I now whole heartedly support Senator McCain.
Please Elaborate.
Eleanor Roosevelt: It seems to me that the overly partisan tactics used by our
present Democratic leaders and Barack Obama make them unworthy of
winning the White House. Throughout his entire career in the Senate, Barack
Obama has pandered to senior party leaders –and acquiesced in their tactics
of demonizing President Bush.
By the end of 2007 he was first on the National Journals approval voting list of
doctrinaire Democratic party liners. in 2007. In short, he has won the
Democratic nomination by adhering strictly to the uncompromising partisan
lines of self serving politicians who use lies to demonize their opponents.
In contrast, John McCain has put the national interest above partisan politics
throughout his entire adult life. As a result, doctrinaire conservatives have long
been displeased with his frequent participation in bipartisan coalitions. He
also has had a history of constructive opposition to President Bush’s initial
failure to send sufficient ground forces into the Iraq war.
If we are to survive the dangers of terrorist nations using nuclear weapons and
Jihadists engaging in suicidal bombings, in my view it is a moral imperative
for John McCain to become our Commander in Chief.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Still Abusing His Guests
April 1, 2008
Knowing that Kate Michelman, a preeminent abortion rights advocate, supports
Barack Obama, Chris Matthews' below-the-belt verbal assault on her was: "How does
it feel to have abandoned the cause of your life?" The Hardball master then badgered
her by asking how a feminist like her could support someone other than Hillary
Clinton.
Ms. Michelman has spoken out well for herself. She has also succeeded in making me
a bit ashamed of myself for not having spoken out sooner of my own following
experiences with Chris Matthews.
In 1995, at the request of my literary agent, Matthews met in private with John Dean
and me to discuss my then recently published book Without Honor: The Crimes of
Camelot and Impeachment of President Nixon, which had previously received the
following review in Publisher's Weekly:
"The House Judiciary Committee's recommendation in 1974 that Nixon be impeached
was nearly thwarted by a sham congressional inquiry, according to this blistering
exposé... Zeifman charges that John Doar, special counsel to the inquiry, intentionally
orchestrated a charade because he feared that a thorough investigation of the Nixon
administration's government-sponsored crimes would let out of the bag Kennedy-era
wiretaps, burglaries and sanctioned murders carried out in the name of national
security...Finally, Zeifman maintains that Doar aide Hillary Rodham (now the First
Lady) helped Doar gain control over the investigation through unethical tricks and
faulty legal opinions."
John Dean had written the introduction to the book, which was based on a private
diary that I kept of closed door Judiciary committee meetings. Although he and I had
assumed that Matthews would discuss my book, he treated me discourteously by
engaging in no discussion with me-and conversing with John Dean only about
matters other than my book.
As I left his office, I reminded him that I had worked with his former boss Tip O'Neill to
oppose Ted Kennedy's efforts to keep Nixon in office and quoted the former Speaker
as follows: "the Kennedys are not real Democrats like you and me. They've got their
own Camelot Party. I was born a Democrat before I was baptized a catholic."
Matthews reply was, "What did he mean by that?"
Matthews is certainly not alone in the mainstream media in continuing to perpetuate
the Camelot myth and idolization of JFK and RFK by never mentioning the "Crimes of
Camelot" documented in my book.
Despite the efforts of my well-paid publicist the only TV interview of me ever given in
Washington related to my book was that by Reed Irvine of Accuracy in media-which
occurred within days after the book appeared in Washington book stores.
In retrospect I now find it amusing that Chris Matthews did not want me as an
adversary on his show. However, I regret that I have not spoken out sooner urging
readers to boycott him-and MSNBC for as long as he is in their employ.
Cancer on the Presidency
Wall Street Journal 10/29/96
Sadly, as a life-long Democrat and chief counsel of the House Judiciary
Committee at the time of the Nixon impeachment inquiry, cannot in good
conscience vote to re-elect Bill Clinton. Having reached this decision, I am
proud to be among those Democrats who have chosen principle over party.
Defeating Mr. Clinton would help revive the traditional moral values of the
Democratic Party -- as they existed under Presidents Roosevelt, Truman,
Kennedy, Johnson and Carter.
Having long championed traditional Democratic causes, I simply cannot accept
Mr. Clinton's shameless election-year surge to the right as his chosen means of
winning a second term. And like most if not all traditional Democrats, I have
grave reservations about the Clintons' morality and ethics. In my view there is
now probable cause to consider our president and first lady as felons, who are
likely to be indicted after the Nov. 5 election.
The misdeeds of the Clinton administration have fallen into a pattern of deceit
and corruption that now clearly justifies denying Mr. Clinton a second term in
office. To date more than 30 high administration officials have been
investigated, fired or forced to resign, and the White House has illegally
obtained more than 900 confidential FBI files. Four independent counsels have
been appointed, three to investigate cabinet members and one to investigate
the president himself.
The White House suppressed documents under subpoena. The Department of
Justice, the FBI and the Treasury Department have been politicized and
misused to prosecute or investigate innocent staffers of the White House Travel
Office. The president's Health Care Task Force operated secretly in gross
violation of federal disclosure laws, misled the federal courts and ignored
conflict of interest laws.
The most recent scandal, involving former Commerce Department official and
Democratic Party fund-raiser John Huang (who still has failed to answer a
summons issued by District Judge Royce C. Lamberth), is but another
hauntingly familiar throwback to my days as an investigator of Watergate crimes
and a wide variety of other forms of presidential misconduct. The 1972
Republican Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) was involved in
many shady operations that mixed legitimate government funding operations
with the illegitimate re-funneling of money through backdoor corporate
contributions into CREEP coffers.
Now it appears that Mr. Huang, and his former associates from the Indonesian
Lippo financial conglomerate, were unlawfully funneling contributions from
foreign sources (that had both corporate and political interests in U.S. policy)
into Democratic Party coffers. This mixing of U.S. policy with partisan fund-
raising -- not to mention the questionable background of some of the institutions
and individuals given top clearance by the White House and the DNC -- has
produced a cancer on the Clinton presidency painfully reminiscent of the cancer
that brought down Nixon.
I am particularly saddened that the Clintons now believe that their unethical and
unlawful acts in the pursuit of power will be condoned by all but a few
Democrats in the name of party unity. During the Nixon impeachment inquiry it
was my view that the core of Nixon's corruption was his belief that in politics his
ends justified any means at all.
Ironically, it is now the Clinton administration that has given renewed intensity
to the corrupt notion that immoral means can be legitimized in the pursuit of
political ends. If
Mr. Clinton is re-elected it will be testimony to his success in putting politics
before principle.
A second Clinton term would polarize the nation even more dangerously than
did Richard Nixon's -- this time with Republicans as the new defenders of
integrity in government and Democrats as the defenders of a corrupt
administration. If Mr. Clinton is defeated, Democrats may find a new strength --
and long remember the folly of marching in lockstep in support of a corrupt
president in the name of party unity.
By all accounts Robert Dole is a man of personal integrity. His principles are
conservative, and I will continue to oppose them. Yet because I must remain
true to my traditional Democratic moral values, I will vote for Mr. Dole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ted Kennedy Disgraced Himself
Newsmax 1/30/06
In my view (as a Democrat and former chief counsel to the House Judiciary
Committee), Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., has disgraced himself and
our party by misusing his position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to
achieve self-serving partisan ends.
Kennedy was the architect of an unprecedented tactic: using filibusters to
polarize the Senate along party lines thus denying the confirmation of qualified
conservative judges. In Bush's first term the Senate Democrats used that tactic
successfully against at least 10 nominees for judgeships on circuit courts.
Fortunately, Kennedy failed in his partisan attempt to deny Judge Alito a seat on
the U.S. Supreme Court.] This occurred largely because Democratic Senator
Ben Nelson of Nebraska formed a non-partisan coalition of seven Democrats
and seven Republicans to oppose filibusters, except in extraordinary cases.
Filibusters first arose after the Civil War as a means of defeating legislation
intended to foster desegregation. They were an anathema to those of us who
joined Martin Luther King's famous March on Washington in 1963.
Fifteen years later during the Clinton administration filibusters were presumably
also abhorrent to Senator Kennedy, who then wanted to outlaw them entirely.
On Jan. 28, 1998, he argued: " The president and the Senate do not always
agree [on judicial nominations]. But we should resolve these disagreements by
voting 'yes' or 'no.'" Three years later Kennedy put politics above principle and
became a champion of the filibuster. He also threatened to boycott any work of
the Senate that was not essential for national security if a Republican majority
was trying to outlaw filibusters by amending the Senate rules.
Subsequently, in a badgering cross-examination of Judge Alito, Kennedy tried
to portray him as an undercover enemy of equal rights for women and minorities.
For me, Kennedy's effort to impugn Judge Alito's integrity was reminiscent of
Republican Senator Joe McCarthy, who tarred his victims with the brush of guilt
by association. Kennedy's charge against Alito was based on the fact that 34
years ago, while a reserve officer in the Army, he joined a Princeton alumni
group that opposed the banning of ROTC programs from the university's
campus. Some members of the group (other than Alito) wanted Princeton to
continue its traditional policy of denying admission to women.
They also opposed affirmative action programs based on quotas. (Quota-bases
programs were subsequently prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court.)
On Jan. 17, Newsmax reported a story that most of the liberal media ignored:
Kennedy had admitted his own membership in the Owl Club, which does not
allow women, and was banned from the Harvard campus. He had paid dues to
the all-male club ever since his student days. Faced with evidence of his
hypocrisy, Kennedy said, "I am going to get out of it as fast as I can."
Aside from the Senator's association with an all-male club there is other more
substantial evidence of flaws in Kennedy's character: Kennedy had been
expelled from Harvard for paying a friend to take a Spanish exam for him.
He also has a history of mistreating women. In July 1969, with Mary Jo
Kopechne (his date for the night at a drinking party) beside him in his car,
Kennedy drove off the side of a bridge at Chappaquiddick on Martha’s
Vineyard..When the car began to submerge in water the Senator escaped. Mary
Jo remained in the car and drowned.
At that time Joan Kennedy, the Senator's wife, was pregnant. Traumatized by
the scandal and by her husband's philandering, she had a miscarriage. She
then started to drink her way into alcoholism. Eventually she went into
psychiatric treatment and divorced Kennedy.
To counter the bad reputation he acquired among women because of the
Chappaquiddick scandal and his mistreatment of his wife, the Senator pandered
to pro-choice feminists – causing his pro-life detractor to quip, "Libertine men
always favor abortion."
At the Senate's confirmation hearings Kennedy metaphorically picked up the
pro-abortion gauntlet and hoped to deliver Judge Alito's head on a political
platter to Washington's most radical feminist groups and other major
contributors of campaign money to the Democratic Party.
Finally, anyone interested in the flaws in Kennedy's character should read "The
Senator: My Ten Years With Ted Kennedy," by Richard Burke. The author
describes how he tried to save the Senator from his personal excesses.
He also provides a behind-the-scenes account of Kennedy's 1980 unsuccessful
primary race against then President Jimmy Carter; which hopelessly polarized
the Democratic Party - and helped Ronald Reagan move into the White House.
During my own career on Capitol Hill I once told House Speaker "Tip" O'Neill in
confidence: "I have a low opinion of Senator Kennedy." He replied discreetly:
"The Kennedys are not real Democrats. They have their own party."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Democratic Caucus Should Remove
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Newsmax 4/17/07
On April 6, a Washington Post Editorial aptly described Mrs. Pelosi’s trip to
Demascus as a “pratfall,” – which the dictionary defines as “a fall in which one
lands on the buttocks, often regarded as comical or humiliating.”
In my view that word was a discrete understatement. As a life-long Democrat
and former congressional chief counsel I regard her conduct as an
unconstitutional abuse of power that warrants her removal by our Democratic
Caucus,
As I previously noted in my article of April 7, she persistently fosters what
Thomas Jefferson denounced as "tyranny by the majority" — and violates House
Rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum, and to
foster "comity" (a word rarely used these days, meaning "mutual respect"). Her
trip to Damascus was more than a blunder. In denying President Bush’s request
as well as purporting falsely to Speak for Israel it was a usurpation of
Presidential power
As a result of her defiance of the president, Democrat Leon Panetta, the former
chief of staff to President Clinton, cautioned in the April 2 New York Times that
if the Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on other than [domestic
issues]… that's a recipe for losing seats in the next election."
The Wright Precedent
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being repeated by
Nancy Pelosi. After Wright became speaker, five South American presidents
had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan administration vigorously
opposed. Anti-Sandinistas and Contra hardliners became incensed when they
learned that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a meeting between
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo the
Catholic leader being asked to mediate the peace.
Then House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous accusations
in the Ethics Committee of malfeasance by Wright. In the end the House
Democratic Caucus determined that Wright had lost his effectiveness as
Speaker and compelled him to resign. They voted to replace him with Democrat
Tom Foley — who restored the traditional civility and comity that had prevailed
under previous Democratic Speakers.
To date the Democratic Caucus has either been suffering from a loss of
institutional memory or is hopefully keeping its power dry before taking up the
matter of her counter-productive loss of effectiveness as Speaker.
Also few if any media writers ever refresh the public’s recollection of the
controversy in the Democratic Caucus in 2002 when she first ran for Minority
Leader. Then she was opposed by Rep. Harold Ford Jr, (D Tenn), a black
Southern Democrat who later became a Senator -- and without her support was
recently defeated for re-election by a Republican. Fiver years ago Ford
appeared on the Don Imus show and described Pelosi as: “destructive,”
“obstructionist,” and “not the kind of leadership we [Democrats] need.”
Last year after becoming Speaker Pelosi supported her closest ally, Abscam-
Scandal-tainted Rep. John Murtha, to be Majority Leader. However, she was
overruled by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D IL) and the Democratic Caucus which by a
large majority voted to appoint Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s long time rival.
Mrs. Pelosi, whose San Francisco constituency is far left, currently claims credit
for leading the Democratic Party’s election victories last year. However the
credit really belongs to Emanuel – a former key member of Chicago Mayor
Daley’s staff, whom Bill Clinton hired to be his Chief of Staff. The truth is that
Emanuel had the political acumen to recruit enough conservative Democrats to
defeat Republicans and control the House.
In my view, the best way for Democrats to try to win control of both Congress
and the White House in 2008 is for Emanuel and the Democratic Caucus now to
follow the Wright precedent of 1989 and force Pelosi to resign, Then Rahm
Emanuel should use his political acumen to replace her with a more moderate
Democrat with a reputation for civility and comity. This will shift our party’s
partisan policies toward a more centrist position -- and reduce the demagogic
political warfare that is now diminishing the moral authority of both political
parties.
The result will restore the pre-Pelosi Democratic tradition, in which Democratic
partisan policies are determined in the Democratic Caucus and not in the
Speaker’s office -- and our House Speakers are role models of civility.
What Citizens Can Do About Pelosi
In the case of Wright the Democratic Caucus responded to a wide spread public
outcry against his fierce partisanship that was generated by the proceedings of
the House Ethics Committee that investigated his political history. Under today’
s House Rules such an investigation can be launched by petitions filed by
House Members. In my view, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike
should contact their Representatives in Congress and urge them to file such a
petition with the Ethics Committee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Nancy Pelosi Should Resign
Newsmax 4/6/07
Nancy Pelosi has persistently violated her duty to exercise her speaker powers
in accordance with the Constitution and the current "106th Congress House
Rules Manual" (House Document 106-320). In short, she has fostered what is
known as "tyranny by the majority" — and violated House Rules that give her
the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum, and to foster "comity" (a word
rarely used these days, meaning "mutual respect").
The "House Rules Manual" includes Jefferson's "Manual of Parliamentary
Procedures," originally drafted by the founder of the Democratic Party when, as
vice president, he presided over the Senate from 1797 to 1801.
In 1837 the House, provided that the provisions of Jefferson's Manual should
"govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they
are not inconsistent with [subsequently adopted rules]."
Jefferson's manual, which is still in effect, was a codification of 18th century
"common law" and re-affirms that House Rules are "the only weapons by which
the minority can defend itself . . . and by a strict adherence to which the weaker
party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses which these
forms were intended to check, and which the wantonness of power is but too
often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities."
Currently, Pelosi, who is second in line to the president, often describes herself
as a partner in his power — a higher role than the Constitution grants to the vice
president, who is first in the line of secession — and whose only official duties
are confined to presiding over the Senate.
Pelosi Oversteps the Electorate
In closing the recent debate on the $125 billion Emergency Defense
Appropriations bill's provision to bring our troops home from Iraq next year,
Pelosi — purporting to speak for the entire electorate — proclaimed "The
American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war . . . The
American people see the reality of the war; the president does not." Both before
and after the debate she has also often derided him for waging "a war without
end."
As Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan once noted "Members of Congress are
entitled to their own opinions — but not to their own facts.” Mrs. Pelosi's false
assertion of a national consensus was then belied by a role call vote of 218 to
213."
The facts are that she presides over a House divided by both the war in Iraq and
a political culture war at home. She obviously wants to win the domestic
political war against the Republicans by setting a deadline for the Iraq war.
Another fact is that when she first became speaker she pledged to curtail the
"earmarking" of appropriation bills with pork. Yet she encouraged her longtime
Democratic ally John Murtha to use his powers on the Appropriations
Committee to load the bill with $24 billion of earmarked pork. The New York
Times of March 24 described it as "largely aimed at domestic program
unrelated to military expenses [and] was added by Democrats to make the bill
more acceptable to lawmakers."
Similarly, the Senate later approved a similar pork laden measure in a party line
vote of 51 to 47, with Sen. Lieberman the sole Democrat siding with the
Republicans. Despite the fact that, with defense funds due to expire in May,
Pelosi then used her powers to recess until April 29 — which even her liberal
supporters in the media have characterized as an exercise of partisan
brinkmanship.
Pelosi's Syrian Mistake
She also denied a request by President Bush (who has primary constitutional
authority over the conduct of foreign policy) that as the third-highest official of
the United State she not make an official visit to Syria, which our government
has officially declared to be a "terrorist state."
On a high profile televised visit to Syria, she conferred with President Bashar al-
Hassad. She not only purported to speak for the American people in opposing
Bush's policies and the Iraq war, she purported to have spoken for Israel. As
reported in the Jerusalem Post, "[Israel's] Prime Minister Office issued a rare
‘clarification' Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted U.S.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had
brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks."
As a result of her defiance of the president and persistent confrontation of his
foreign policies, Democrat Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff to President
Clinton, was quoted in the April 2 New York Times as cautioning that if the
Democrats "go into total confrontation mode on other than [domestic issues]
where they just pass bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for
losing seats in the next election."
Ironically, history is now repeating itself. Our first woman Speaker Pelosi may
well deserve to become the second Democratic speaker to be compelled to
resign from Congress.
The prior history of Democratic Speaker Jim Wright is now being repeated by
Nancy Pelosi — perhaps by a loss of memory of the House Democratic caucus,
which forced Wright to resign. After Wright became speaker five South
American presidents had agreed on a peace plan which the Reagan
administration vigorously opposed.
Anti-Sandinistas and Contra hardliners became incensed when they learned
that Speaker Wright had secretly sat in on a meeting between Nicaraguan
President Daniel Ortega and Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo the Catholic
leader being asked to mediate the peace. The Washington Post wrote
"[Wright's] approach marks a dramatic shift in the running of the House and in
the role of the House speaker as Washington's No. 1 Democrat."
The Wrong Way for Wright
As described 10 years later by Wright's own chief of staff: "[Then] Republican
Minority Whip Trent Lott described Wright's participation in foreign affairs as
"The most arrogant abuse of power I've ever seen . . . Dick Cheney of Illinois,
[then] chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, got so mad at Jim Wright
that he began to wax nostalgic about the warmth and affection for the previous
speaker, Tip O'Neill. ‘There are no such feelings for Jim Wright,' he observed."
Then-House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich began filing numerous accusations
of malfeasance by the speaker in the House Ethics Committee.
In the end Jim Wright resigned.
With the unanimous endorsement of the Democratic caucus the House then
voted to replace him with Democrat Tom Foley — who restored the traditional
civility and comity that had prevailed under Democratic Speakers Sam Rayburn,
John McCormack, Carl Albert and "Tip" O'Neill.
Currently, with public respect for professional politicians at an all time low, and
the financing of presidential campaigns at an all time high, the moral authority
of both the Democratic Party and the GOP is diminishing. In my view, the longer
Nancy Pelosi remains our party's leading spokesperson the more her penchant
for political warfare and non-compliance with Jefferson's "Manual" will enhance
the chances of Republican control of Congress and/or the White House in 2008.
She will serve our party and the nation best by resigning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Hillary Clinton Puts Politics Above Principles
For Thirty Years
Newsmax: 10/26/07
If Hillary becomes our first woman President she will have the dubious
distinction of having successfully thwarted the efforts of Senator Obama to
become our first Black -- and Governor Richardson our first Hispanic --
President. Her victory would also be the culmination of a political career which
she began in 1969 at Wellesley -- when she won prominence in Life Magazine
for her controversial condemnation of our first Black Senator, Ed Brooke, a
liberal Massachusetts Republican.
In high school Hillary had been a Republican “Goldwater Girl” and at Wellesley
she soon became President of the college Republican club that supported
Nixon. However, when Nixon fell into disrepute Hillary eventually joined the
then popular “New Left” wing of the Democratic Party.
At that time Senator Brooke had become an anathema to far left Black Panthers
and Black Muslims. Because of his prior military service and membership in the
Republican Party – despite his opposition to Nixon’s escalation of Vietnam War
– they maligned him as a “Right Wing Uncle Tom”
In 1969 Senator Brooke was invited to receive an honorary degree and give a
commencement address at Wellesley. “New left” student protesters persuaded
the school’s president to allow Hillary to be the first student in the schools
history to give a commencement address in rebuttal to that of another speaker.
In her speech Hillary assailed Brooke.
She suggested that the “words integrity, trust, and respect” were misused if
applied to him. To explain to her fellow students why she had abandoned the
Republican Party she added, “There's a very strange conservative strain that
goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing
because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original
ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience.”
In my recent book Hillary’s Pursuit of Power I have documented her ethical
flaws since 1974 – when she served under my supervision on the staff of House
Judiciary Committee. At that time, she became allied with the far left wing of our
party, which opposed the confirmation of Gerald Ford to be vice president. For
self serving partisan purposes they vilified Nixon publicly – but wanted us to
keep him in office “twisting in the wind” for as long as possible.
In my view, throughout her entire career Hillary has put politics above principle
-- and is ethically unfit to hold office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Ford's Forgotten Legacy
Newsmax 12/29/06
When the confirmation of Jerry Ford to be vice president was pending in the
House Judiciary Committee I, as a Democrat, was in charge of an investigation
that found him highly qualified.
I now continue to have the highest regard for his willingness to put principle
above partisan politics.
Sadly, his legacies are now being maligned by The New York Times.
In its Dec. 28 editorial, the Times assailed him for the pardon of Richard Nixon.
It also denigrated his prior role as a Republican minority leader by describing
him this way: "In essence a creature of Congress — more precisely, of the
House of Representatives, a place of perpetual compromise that encourages
neither the vision that sometimes attaches to the Senate nor the managerial
skills [of] a governor."
The New York Times and the current left wing of our Democratic Party now give
Ford no credit for a meeting he held in the Oval Office with Times reporter
James Reston and other prominent journalists.
At that time he disclosed that the CIA and Defense Department had jointly
sponsored political assassinations on a broad scale under presidents Kennedy
and Nixon.
Prominent Democrats such as Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and
Harry Reid — like the editors of The New York Times, the media in general, and
even many Republicans — would have us forget that John and Robert Kennedy
were responsible for the assassinations of President Lumumba in the Congo,
President Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam, and Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican
Republican.
In revising history, they would also have the present generation of Americans
not know that with the aid of Mafia leader Sam Giancana, the Kennedys
sponsored numerous attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. In my view, the
current ignorance of most Americans of an assassination program named
"Operation Phoenix" — that went into operation during the Nixon administration
— also reflects poorly on the media.
Under that program, political assassinations of South Vietnamese civilians were
carried out on a broad scale. In my view, the fact that the Phoenix program has
not been widely reported is largely due to the collaboration of most of the main
media with the CIA — that has long been a major source of leaks of scandals in
other agencies.
In the 197Os, CIA Director William Colby himself admitted before the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence that the program, which was administered
jointly with the Defense Department, killed more than 20,000 suspected civilian
communists. Later investigative journalists reported that Colby's figures had
understated the assassinations. For more on this, read "The Agency: The Rise
and Decline of the CIA," by John Ranelagh (1986).
From 1965 through 1968 the program summarily executed about 600 civilians
per month. Of these most were tortured prior to execution. From 1968 through
1971, more than 40,000 were reportedly killed by the program.
When it was first publicly exposed, the intelligence journal Counterspy
described the Phoenix Program as "the most indiscriminate and massive
program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of World War II."
To his credit, President Ford not only issued an executive order outlawing
political assassinations, he took positive steps to reform both the CIA and the
Defense Department. He fired William Colby and replaced him with George
Bush senior. He likewise fired Nixon's secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger,
and replaced him with Donald Rumsfeld. He also appointed Dick Cheney as his
chief of staff.
Now maligned by The New York Times as lacking managerial skills and vision,
the Ford administration was scandal free. In my view he was the most
nonpartisan and ethical president in my life time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
HILLARY'S WATERGATE SCANDAL
New York Post
In December 1974, as general counsel and chief of staff of the House
Judiciary Committee, I made a personal evaluation of Hillary Rodham (now
Senator Clinton), a member of the staff we had gathered for our
impeachment inquiry on President Richard Nixon. I decided that I could not
recommend her for any future position of public or private trust.
Why? Hillary's main duty on our staff has been described by as
"establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the
inquiry and impeachment." A number of the procedures she recommended
were ethically flawed. And I also concluded that she had violated House
and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized
persons.
Hillary had conferred personally with me regarding procedural rules. I
advised her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House
Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader Tip O'Neill and I had previously agreed
not to advocate anything contrary to the rules already adopted and
published for that Congress. I quoted Mr. O'Neill's statement that: "To try
to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying
to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series."
Hillary assured me that she had not drafted and would not advocate any
such rules changes. I soon learned that she had lied: She had already
drafted changes, and continued to advocate them.
In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon
representation by counsel. She had done this despite the fact that --in our
then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding -- the committee had
afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.
I also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available
for public inspection in our offices. I later learned that the Douglas files
were then removed from our general files without my permission,
transferred to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff, and were no
longer accessible to the public.
The young Ms. Rodham had other bad advice about procedures, arguing
that the Judiciary Committee should neither (1) hold any hearings with or
take the depositions of any live witnesses, nor 2) conduct any original
investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible
impeachable offense of President Nixon - but to rely instead on prior
investigations conducted by other committees and agencies.
The committee rejected Ms. Rodham's recommendations: It agreed to allow
President Nixon to be represented by counsel and to hold hearings with
live witnesses. Hillary then advocated that the official rules of the House be
amended to deny members of the committee the right to question
witnesses. This unfair recommendation was rejected by the full House.
(The committee also vetoed her suggestion that it leave the drafting of the
articles of impeachment to her and her fellow special staffers.)
The recommendations advocated by Hillary were apparently initiated or
approved by Yale Law School professor Burke Marshall - in violation of
committee and House rules on confidentiality. They were also advocated
by her immediate supervisors, Special Counsel John Doar and Senior
Associate Special Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, both of whom had worked
under Marshall in the Kennedy Justice Department.
It was not until two months after Nixon's resignation that I first learned of
still another questionable role of Ms. Rodham. On Sept. 26, 1974, Rep.
Charles Wiggins, a Republican member of the committee, wrote to ask
Chairman Rodino to look into a troubling set of events.
That spring, Wiggins and other committee members had asked "that
research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which
to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon." And, while "no such
staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use,"
Wiggins had just learned that such a study had been conducted - at
committee expense - by a team of professors who completed and filed their
reports with the impeachment-inquiry staff well in advance of our public
hearings.
The report was not made available to members of Congress. But after the
impeachment-inquiry staff was disbanded, it was published commercially
and sold in book stores. Wiggins wrote that he was "especially troubled by
the possibility that information deemed essential by some of the members
in their discharge of their responsibilities may have been intentionally
suppressed by the staff during the course our investigation."
On Oct. 3, Rodino wrote back: "Hillary Rodham of the impeachment-inquiry
staff coordinated the work. ... After the staff received the report it was
reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Mr.
Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present
form." On the charge of willful suppression, he wrote: "That was not the
case ... The staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in
its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have
practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and
agreed with the judgment."
During my 17 year tenure with the House Judiciary Committee, I had
supervisory authority over several hundred staff members. The only
attorneys whom I cannot recommend for future positions of public and
private trust are Hillary Rodham, John Doar, and Bernard Nussbaum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
History Repeats Itself
GOP Sustains Lieberman's Lead
Newsmax 11/16/06
According to the latest polls, Senator Joe Lieberman - a longtime
Democrat turned independent candidate - is now leading the anti-
Iraq war candidate, and winner of the Democratic primary, Ned
Lamont by 48 to 40 percent.
With 60 percent of those polled opposed to the war, the Republican
candidate Alan Schlesinger is getting only 4 percent. Ironically,
Lieberman - the Democratic Party's candidate for Vice President in
2000 – now owes his lead to overwhelming Republican support.
As a Connecticut veteran of World War II and a life-long Democrat,
I wholeheartedly support Lieberman. I recall that in 1940 during the
Battle of Britain, the "America First" movement assailed President
Roosevelt for lending American destroyers to Britain. Sadly, the
most wealthy and powerful Roosevelt basher was a Democrat,
former Ambassador to Britain, Joseph Kennedy. Prior to that
Kennedy had been sacked by FDR for publicly predicting that Hitler
would conquer Britain.
With the Democratic Party polarized, the Republican Party's
candidate for President was Wendell Wilkie. Insisting that "politics
ends at the water's edge," Wilkie supported Roosevelt's military aid
to Britain – and lost the election. It was not until after the attack on
Pearl Harbor that Roosevelt - with the aid of Wilkie Republicans –
was able to lead a unified nation into World War II.
Today, we are engaged in a war against totalitarian fanatics who
believe that they will go to heaven if they commit suicide murdering
civilians – a fanaticism that exceeds that of Nazi and Fascist
soldiers. Yet unlike Wendell Wilkie and the Republicans of World
War II, our current Democratic Party leaders engage in fierce
partisan politics that extends far beyond the water's edge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----April 1, 2008April 1, 2008Eleanor Roosevelt Decries New York
Times’ Unfairness to McCain
© Copyright by Jerry Zeifman 2008
On December 19, 2007 I published an article in Newsmax, “Eleanor Roosevelt’s
Thoughts on Hillary,” based on a dream I had in which I interviewed Eleanor
Roosevelt. Last night the former First Lady came again to me in a dream.
Following is our conversation.
What are your thoughts on the current controversy between Senator John
McCain and the New York Times regarding the Iraq War?
Eleanor Roosevelt: I am dismayed by the recent refusal of the Times to
publish an article by Senator McCain in rebuttal to its prior Op-ed article by
Senator Obama advocating time tables for troop withdrawals from Iraq.
However, I am not surprised. It seems to me that when Arthur Schulzberger Jr.
took over the ownership of the Times in 1992 it lost its moral compass .
Please elaborate.
Eleanor Roosevelt: The Times was a fine paper during the presidencies of
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George Bush Senior. At that time Abe
Rosenthal served as its top editor. Its then owner and publisher was Arthur
Ochs Sulzberger, whose nickname was “Punch.” During that period the Times
had a good reputation and won a Pulitzer prize.
Abe Rosenthal had started out as an office boy and stayed with the Times for 55
years. As editor he did not express opinions based on undisclosed “reliable
sources” and documented his editorials with undistorted facts. As a result he
was respected on both sides of the political aisle.
As a young man, “Punch” Schulzberger, like his close friend, Art Buchwald, a
famous humorist who was later banned from the Clinton White House, had
enlisted voluntarily in the Marine Corps during World War Two. In 1951, after
earning a B.A. degree in English, he was recalled to active duty during the
Korean War. He took charge of the Times in 1963. During his tenure the
Times won a Pulitzer Prize. He served with distinction until 1992, when he
retired and gave control of his son Arthur Schulzberger Jr.
What are your thoughts on Arthur Jr’s reasons for changing the Times?
Eleanor Roosevelt: Sadly, I see him as a bad apple who fell far from his
father’s tree. When Bill and Hillary first launched their “two for one” campaign
for the presidency, Arthur Jr. decided that it would be financially profitable for
him to hitch the Times’ wagon to the two rising stars. After that he considered
enemies of the Clinton as his enemies.
For example, he soon fired Abe Rosenthal for writing an article critical of
Hillary, stating: “In concept the First Ladyship is an affront to American
democracy. In practice it skews the administration of government, evades anti-
nepotism statutes and avoids the responsibility that should go with authority …
In lieu of salary it provides the jobholder with staff., luxury, and that most
important of all perks – power.”
What do you think of the Times coverage of the presidency of George
W. Bush?
Eleanor Roosevelt: Just as arms dealers profiteer from military wars, it seems
to me that Arthur Jr. has been profiteering from inciting culture wars. For
example, Arthur Jr. allied himself with MoveOn.org, which started by
petitioning Congress to "move on" past the impeachment of President Clinton.
Together Arthur Jr. and MoveOn.org became the media’s leading practitioners
of the politics of personal destruction.
I was chagrined, but also not surprised, months ago when the Times published
a full page advertisement by MoveOn.org, maligning General David Petraeus
as “General Betray Us.” It also favored M0ve0n.org with a price of $77,508,
when its regular price for all other advertisers was $142,083. At that time
Arthur Jr’s tactics caused the Democratic controlled Senate to adopt a
resolution by a vote of 72 to 25, condemning the attempt at character
assassination of General Petraeus -- whose then recent appoint had been
unanimously confirmed.
Whom do you currently support for President?
Eleanor Roosevelt: As you know, during our party’s primaries I opposed
Senator Clinton, who was endorsed by the New York Times. I then supported
Senator Obama as the lesser of two evils. However, in the current presidential
campaign, I now whole heartedly support Senator McCain.
Please Elaborate.
Eleanor Roosevelt: It seems to me that the overly partisan tactics used by our
present Democratic leaders and Barack Obama make them unworthy of
winning the White House. Throughout his entire career in the Senate, Barack
Obama has pandered to senior party leaders –and acquiesced in their tactics
of demonizing President Bush.
By the end of 2007 he was first on the National Journals approval voting list of
doctrinaire Democratic party liners. in 2007. In short, he has won the
Democratic nomination by adhering strictly to the uncompromising partisan
lines of self serving politicians who use lies to demonize their opponents.
In contrast, John McCain has put the national interest above partisan politics
throughout his entire adult life. As a result, doctrinaire conservatives have long
been displeased with his frequent participation in bipartisan coalitions. He
also has had a history of constructive opposition to President Bush’s initial
failure to send sufficient ground forces into the Iraq war.
If we are to survive the dangers of terrorist nations using nuclear weapons and
Jihadists engaging in suicidal bombings, in my view it is a moral imperative
for John McCain to become our Commander in Chief.
 | |  |
