New York Times Exposes Marxist Mayoral Candidate

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

A new kind of investigative reporting was unveiled at The New York Times on Monday. A story about the communist connections of a major politician was plastered across page 19 of the paper. Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio, just endorsed by President Obama, was the subject of a long story about his support for the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Whatever the reason for the scrutiny, the paper has opened the door to additional investigations of Democratic Party politicians, including Obama himself.

The story represents vindication for the late Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI), who gave rise to the term, “McCarthyism,” a search for Communist connections and anti-Americanism that was considered objectionable by progressives collaborating with enemies of the U.S. McCarthyism, it seems, is now in vogue at The New York Times.

There’s no reason to stop with de Blasio. Trevor Loudon’s new book The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress, looks at dozens of other Democratic Party politicians who call themselves progressives and have Communist connections that go even deeper than that of de Blasio.

Salon, whose editor has endorsed de Blasio as a “real progressive,” calls the Times article on de Blasio an “anti-lefty hit piece.” By the liberal Times? What is going on here?

“References to his early activism have been omitted from his campaign Web site,” the Times said about de Blasio, in a revelation that could have also applied to Barack Obama’s relationship with Communist Frank Marshall Davis, and his run for the presidency.

So what we have here is a cover-up of the first order.

In de Blasio’s case, the paper undertook investigations that would have made Senator Joe McCarthy proud. It said, “…a review of hundreds of pages of records and more than two dozen interviews suggest his time as a young activist was more influential in shaping his ideology than previously known, and far more political than typical humanitarian work.”

This is simply incredible, as well as admirable, on the part of the Times and its reporter, Javier C. Hernandez. The Communist background of a major political figure has suddenly become newsworthy. The paper even noted that de Blasio went on an illegal honeymoon to Communist Cuba.

It appears that his real “honey” was Fidel Castro. No wonder he is engaged in a cover-up.

Despite the Times’ investigative work, it is clear that more scrutiny is needed, even of his family connections. The Times says de Blasio’s mother, “then working at the Office of War Information in New York, was accused of being a Communist for attending a concert featuring a Soviet band.” It’s doubtful that attending a Soviet concert is all there is to this particular subversive connection.

Bringing the story back to de Blasio, the paper added that he “studied Latin American politics at Columbia and was conversational in Spanish, grew to be an admirer of Nicaragua’s ruling Sandinista party, thrusting himself into one of the most polarizing issues in American politics at the time.”

Trying to explain the situation at the time, the paper said, “The Reagan administration denounced the Sandinistas as tyrannical and Communist, while their liberal backers argued that after years of dictatorship, they were building a free society with broad access to education, land and health care.”

Of course, the Sandinistas were indeed puppets of the Soviets and the Cubans, and remain so to this day, except that the Soviets have become the Russians and the late Hugo Chavez of Venezuela emerged as one of their modern-day mentors, in addition to the Castro brothers.

This is not completely an old news story, since the Sandinistas have returned to power in Nicaragua. Indeed, the Communists are on the rise throughout Latin America.

The Times added that “de Blasio became an ardent supporter of the Nicaraguan revolutionaries. He helped raise funds for the Sandinistas in New York and subscribed to the party’s newspaper, Barricada, or Barricade. When he was asked at a meeting in 1990 about his goals for society, he said he was an advocate of ‘democratic socialism.’”

The Times said de Blasio did most of his work on behalf of the Sandinistas through the Quixote Center in Maryland, a group I came across while writing about the wars in Central America for Human Events in the 1980s. A spin-off, the Christic Institute, filed a frivolous lawsuit against supporters of the Nicaragua freedom fighters. You can still see my 1987 debate with Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute on C-SPAN.

When I noted the Communist links of the Christic Institute during the debate, Sheehan’s predictable response was: “Joe McCarthy.” His frivolous lawsuit was thrown out of court in a case that I described as “legal terrorism” against anti-communists.

The FBI file on the Christic Institute is helpful in analyzing its political contacts, such as then-Senator John Kerry, used in order to make support for the anti-Sandinista, pro-freedom cause into a “scandal.”

The Quixote Center was “founded by Catholic leaders,” as the Times points out, but these “leaders” were on the far left and dedicated to the belief that communism and Christianity could mix. It is also known as liberation theology.

De Blasio also raised money for the Nicaragua Solidarity Network, the Times said. “In 1991, at one of his final meetings with the Nicaragua Solidarity Network, he argued that the liberal values the group had defended were ‘far from dead’ around the world, with blossoming movements in places like Mexico, the Philippines, El Salvador and Brazil, according to minutes of the meeting,” the Times reported. “He spoke of a need to understand and build alliances with Islam, predicting it would soon be a dominant force in politics.”

This alliance with Islam is, of course, typical of many leftists, such as Carlos the Jackal, the terrorist trained by the KGB who converted to Islam and became devoted to Osama bin Laden.

Promoting a Marxist alliance with Islam, in view of 9/11 and the anti-American terrorism around the world, is something that takes on ominous and frightening implications.

Such talk is highly relevant today because, as mayor, de Blasio could dismantle the New York Police Department’s aggressive campaign to uncover jihad plots targeting the citizens of that city and the nation.

But Joan Walsh of Salon hails his “bold stands on police controversies.”

He is the frontrunner for mayor and has the endorsement of Barack Obama, who says, “Progressive change is the centerpiece of Bill de Blasio’s vision for New York City, and it’s why he will be a great mayor of America’s largest city.”

As for de Blasio himself, today he, too, “describes himself as a progressive,” the Times reports.

His endorsements include not only Obama and the Clintons, but also such figures as Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), George Soros, editor of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel, Alec Baldwin, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, and former ACORN head Bertha Lewis.

Following up on the Times investigation, the CBS affiliate in New York confirmed, “De Blasio’s official biography on his campaign website makes no mention of his activism.”

Activism? Is that what organizing for communist revolution has become?

In any case, why would he want to hide his “progressive activism” on behalf of the Communists? Perhaps the connections go far beyond what the paper itself calls items on the “social justice” agenda.

In fact, the paper said he gave them a recent interview and that de Blasio said his views then—and now—“represented a mix of admiration for European social democratic movements, Mr. Roosevelt’s New Deal and liberation theology.”

So a mix of communism and Christianity is still appealing to him.

At the bottom of his campaign website, one finds the category of “transparency,” where we find “hosts of campaign-sponsored events,” but nothing about his Marxist background.

It would appear that the Times has uncovered a Pandora’s box of connections that the candidate never wanted to be discovered.

What else is he hiding? And after de Blasio is completely exposed, can we turn our attention to President Obama?

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].


Commission Seeks Answers on Benghazi

By: Bethany Stotts
Accuracy in Media

The Obama administration has been supporting jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood abroad, thereby furthering the goals of Islamists in the Middle East, argued several speakers at Accuracy in Media’s Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) conference last week. Why is this important to the exploration of what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012? First of all, it provides context for the terrible conditions that Ambassador Stevens faced when he traveled there that September, and the make-up of those who attacked our facilities there. It could also partially explain the administration’s eagerness to falsely blame the attack on a YouTube video that Muslims found offensive, rather than acknowledge poor security conditions and a growing al-Qaeda movement in the region. After all, the President believes that core al Qaeda is on the run.

“Here’s the sentence, here’s the headline, that the Obama administration does not want broadcast anywhere or printed anywhere: ‘Obama Administration Arms Al Qaeda,’” Chris Farrell, Director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, said at the conference. “That’s it, right there.”

Judicial Watch is the only organization litigating in Federal Court on Benghazi to date. It recently issued a new report, the second of two, on the Benghazi attacks and the Administration’s subsequent stonewalling.

“Look, this attack in Benghazi did not happen in a vacuum. It wasn’t a fluke. It didn’t just occur,” argued author and investigative journalist Ken Timmerman. “It was a policy shift that took place as soon as Obama took power to overturn our longstanding national security alliances in the Middle East and to support the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“I think the path, I think the green light, if you will, even, was given by President Obama in his 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt, when he green-lighted the Islamic uprising that would follow over the next two years,” said Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy. Lopez is a former CIA operations officer and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. “What happened in Libya was a follow-on to that green light, as well as what happened in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood rose up and seized power for a time.”

During the aforementioned Cairo speech, noted Timmerman, “sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving the speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group although tolerated by the Mubarak regime.” Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt at that time, was not invited. This sends a clear message from our President.

As for Muammar Qaddafi, he was a brutal dictator, but “He had al-Qaeda jihadis in his jails,” said Lopez. “And yet, in March of 2011, the United States, together with NATO allies Italy, France, and others, decided to intervene in Libya. Why? To assist al Qaeda militias to overthrow a sovereign government that was no threat to the United States.” Those skeptical of the al Qaeda connections to Libya Shield, Ansar al Sharia, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), and other Libyan “liberation” freedom fighters should read John Rosenthal’s The Jihadist Plot, which details al Qaeda’s intricate plan to overthrow the apostate Qaddafi.

“As we know, we’ve had step-by-step accounts of the killing of Osama bin Laden, and some information that was probably classified,” noted Kevin Shipp, a former CIA officer and author of From the Company of Shadows, at the conference. “We’ve had step-by-step accounts of what’s going on in Syria, with the exceptions of some things about the gas. We’ve been given nothing about Benghazi. No, not even the smallest detail regarding what happened that evening.”

The reason we’ve been given step-by-step accounts of Osama bin Laden’s death is partially because it helped the President politically. Similarly, knowledge of Syria’s conflict assisted the President in making the case to send military and non-military aid. But Benghazi, where four people died? President Obama would rather that issue be swept under the rug.

Members of the Commission expressed their dismay that the administration did not mount a more vigorous attempt to rescue the Benghazi four, and that, they argue, stand down orders were given.

“If the President’s child were in Benghazi, would the rescue attempt have been more aggressive?” asked Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, at the conference. Tyrone Woods was one of two former Navy SEALs who, along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and information officer Sean Smith, was killed that day in Benghazi. Charles Woods asked the same question at a hearing before Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) committee three days later. At the hearing, Rep. Issa announced that he had subpoenaed two Diplomatic Security agents who were on the ground in Benghazi that night. He said that the State Department had suggested to him that these two might not want to come forward because there was an FBI investigation ongoing.

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), who also spoke at the conference, noted that those involved were consistently politicizing the FBI investigation by using it as an excuse to not provide information.

“I appreciate the fact that this Citizens’ Committee is here, but I wish that it wasn’t necessary,” said Woods. “I wish that it was not necessary, because the truth voluntarily should have been presented by our administration.”

The Commission is dedicated to finding out the truth behind the Benghazi attacks, and this work is ongoing. Captain Larry Bailey (Ret.) invited confidential sources to contact him and be assured of total privacy and anonymity. Videos and transcripts from the September 16th conference are being posted at the CCB website.

Bethany Stotts is a freelance writer, and former staff writer for Accuracy in Academia. She blogs at http://bethanystotts.wordpress.com/.


Emotional Dissonance

Arlene from Israel

“Moadim L’Simcha” (times of joy) is the traditional greeting for the intermediate days of Sukkot. And, yes, I’ve heard it many time these past few days. Personally, I have been finding it to be an especially lovely Sukkot — with family gathered in the sukkah amidst laughter and singing. And not one, but two visits to the Kotel.

But each time within the last week that I have turned away from the holiday celebrations to familiarize myself with the latest news, all joy has fled, replaced by a sense of horror and immeasurable weariness.

Emotional dissonance: To balance the disparate emotional responses (somehow) requires the skill of an emotional gymnast — a skill I seem to be lacking.


During this Sukkot, we have lost two soldiers to terrorism within as many days.

First, Sgt. Tomer Hazan, age 20, who was serving in the Air Force.

Credit: moralowground

The terrorist, Nedal Amar, a Palestinian Arab who worked in Israel without papers, was someone Hazan knew; they held jobs in the same Bat Yam restaurant and reportedly had become friendly.

On Friday, Amar lured an unsuspecting Hazan into Samaria, to an open area not far from his village of Saniria, killed him with a blunt weapon, and hid his body in a well.

After Hazan was reported missing, a team consisting of Shin Bet, IDF and police began a search. Ultimately this brought them to Amar. He confessed — citing as his motivation the intention of trading Hazan (whose death would not yet have been revealed) or, alternately, Hazan’s body, for the release of his brother, Nur al-Din Amar, a member of the terrorist group Tazanim (Fatah). Nur al-Din Amar has been in Israeli prison for some years for a variety of terror-related offenses.


This particular attack, on Hazan, has touched many nerves in our nation, and raises a host of significant issues.

The most pertinent involves the propriety of releasing terrorists from Israeli prison for political reasons before their sentences are complete. It’s been done to free Israelis held hostage, and to allow Israeli bodies to be brought home. And it’s being done now as a “good will” gesture, in a very questionable and widely opposed deal that the Israeli government agreed to under duress in order to bring the Palestinian Arabs to the negotiating table.

What this does is foster a Palestinian Arab mindset that sees it as possible to secure the release of additional prisoners by taking Israel soldiers as hostages. The number of such attempts has doubled in the past few months. Hey! It can be done: they see that Israel is willing to strike such deals.

What is more, potential terrorists are emboldened by the hope and expectation that if they are caught and sentenced to Israeli imprisonment, there will be some deal that will get them out.

All of this works to the detriment of Israeli security goals and Israeli deterrence.


The deal for bringing our “negotiating partners” to the table was the release, in four stages, of some 104 prisoners. (I am still a tad dubious about the final number.) The first group of 26 was let go last month, and the second group is scheduled to be released soon; according to Arab reports, it will be 250 prisoners this time.

According to Israeli sources, when this deal was struck, the release of additional prisoners beyond the first 26 would depend upon good progress in the talks (however that is defined), while the Arabs have been saying that release would follow no matter the progress of talks.

Now, with the abduction and murder of Hazan, there has been an outcry and protest that no further prisoners should be released. Key among those in the government taking a vociferous stand against further releases is Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett (head of Habayit Hayehudi).

Credit: indynewsisrael

He has joined with six other ministers in sending a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu asking that he reconsider the release of additional prisoners as part of the “peace process.”

Yesterday, he said (at the funeral of the second soldier to be killed — see below) that:

“We must stop giving our enemies the impression that Jewish blood has become the cheapest commodity in the Middle East. Make no mistake about us. We will not lay down our weapons. We will not blink.”


“The answer to terror must be a war on the murderers, and not dialogue with those who encourage them.” (Emphasis added)


Another issue that evokes heightened Jewish emotions here is the matter of whether one can trust Arabs. I would never say — as a blanket statement — that Arabs cannot be trusted. Certainly there are those who can be. (If you disagree with me and would like to see me make a blanket statement, please save your time and energy, for I will not.)

The problem is that those who are trustworthy cannot be readily identified because of a readiness the Arabs have to be deceptive for what they consider their larger goals.

The fact that Hazan knew Amar and considered him a friend served him nothing in the end. And this is hardly an isolated instance — other Arabs who were employed by or accepted as the friends or business associates of Jews have then killed those same Jews.

In particular, it is necessary for Israeli soldiers to be on guard, as there are Arabs plotting to abduct them and murder them.


But let me turn to the second soldier we have lost this week: Gavriel Kobi, 20.

Credit: TimesofIsrael

Just yesterday, he was stationed at a post near the Machpela (the Cave of the Patriarchs) in Hevron, when he was hit by a sniper shooting from a distance. He was brought to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The sniper is still being sought.

He will be found. The IDF presence in Hevron has been reinforced, and the search for the sniper is concentrated in the Jabal Johar neighborhood.

Kobi and many other soldiers were stationed on duty in Hevron to protect the tens of thousands of visitors who come during the Sukkot holiday.

Just prior to the shooting of Kobi, there was a riot of Palestinian Arabs at a location near where he was stationed. The Arabs had thrown stones and Molotov cocktails at the IDF personnel stationed there. As I write, I am aware of no direct link that has been identified between this riot and the sniper.


Just hours after Kobi was killed, Prime Minister Netanyahu made a decision about permitting Jews to move into a building practically adjacent to where the soldier was shot.

Last year, the Jewish community of Hevron purchased a building just across the street from the Machpela — they called it Beit Machpela and, in March, they moved in. It’s a modest, three-story structure, as you can see:

Credit: YNet

Within weeks they were evicted because of questions about the authenticity of their documents. By July of this year, an appeals court had validated the purchase, but the Jews were still not permitted to move in because the signature of the Defense Minister was missing.

Now Netanyahu has said:

“Those who attempt to uproot us from the city of our forefathers will achieve the opposite effect. We will continue on one hand to fight terror and to harm terrorists and on the other hand to strengthen settlements.”


It is understood that, as his boss has spoken, the Defense Minister will now be signing…


The Jewish community of Hevron was rightfully pleased with this decision. And yet I am unsettled. Yes, I know that building, or settlement, is considered the Zionist approach to terrorism. But Jews had legally purchased this building prior to the terror attack on Kobi. They should have been allowed entry as soon as the court determination had been made. Instead, word did not come down from the boss, and so they could not use the building.

I think it’s imperative to note the dynamic here: Jews prevented from exercising their proper legal rights in Judea and Samaria because of political considerations — with the Arab position frequently the default. This is not an isolated case. Beit Hamachpela is on the periphery of the part of Hevron controlled by the PA, and Jewish residence there would have expanded — now will expand — Jewish presence in the city. Netanyahu apparently did not see this as a “politically correct” move. Until now.


It should be noted that ostensible PA president Mahmoud Abbas has not condemned the killing of Kobi, nor of Hazan. Our “peace partner.”

It should also be noted that deputy political bureau chief Moussa Abu Marzouk has written on his Facebook page that:

“We are facing a political failure for the Palestinian Authority and the beginning of a new popular intifada against Israel.”


The question that has to be asked is, How crazy are we?

In my next posting I want to take a closer look, with some concerns about what’s coming down the road regarding the “peace negotiations” and Netanyahu’s second Bar Ilan speech, scheduled for October 6th. That’s when it is being said he will set new policy.

No, he has not shared with me what he expects to say, and I would be less than honest if I failed to admit to a certain unease — although rumors are not facts and we don’t have the facts.


But wait! Before October 6th, on the last day of this month, Netanyahu is going to Washington to confer with President Obama. I ask myself what our prime minister has to say to this man after Syria, and I don’t like the answers.

Reportedly, the main topic of conversation will be Iran. But… but… Obama is buying the Iranian “charm offensive.” There are thoughts circulating about what Obama might demand of Netanyahu with regard to the negotiations, in return for a somewhat tough stand on Iran (somewhat tough, as in, no reduction in the sanctions, not a military threat).


But wait again! Netanyahu is also going to the UN to warn the world about Iran. But Bibi, you’ve been there, done that. They didn’t listen then, and now with the Iranian charm offensive they’re surely not going to listen. The world is very eager to be deceived, and I fear that anyone who tries to unsettle the complacency that accompanies this mindset will be seen as a nag who always harps on the same issue.

The fact that Netanyahu is correct to warn about Iran is irrelevant. Golly gee, the permanent members of the UN Security Council are going to meet with representatives of Iran — who are hinting about a reduction in sanctions in order to create a new environment. Is Netanyahu going to make this more difficult?

It boggles the mind to recognize that in all the world we see the situation the most clearly, refusing to be taken in by Iranian game-playing. Or perhaps there are others (such as the Saudis) who also see it clearly but remain mum. What occurs to me is that if we do hit Iran, the world will tell us that we’ve stirred up matters just when there was diplomatic achievement on the horizon. There will certainly be no thanks for what we will have done for the world.


So many concerns to select from — so many issues to make the stomach knot.

Thank Heaven for Moadim l’Simcha.