De Blasio’s warped world view should set off alarm bells
By Michael Goodwin
September 25, 2013 | 2:44am
Trying to defend the indefensible, Bill de Blasio explained his work with Nicaraguan communists this way.
“They had a youthful energy and idealism mixed with a human ability and practicality that was really inspirational,” he told a reporter, before conceding that his heroes were “not free enough by any stretch of the imagination.”
To summarize his argument, on one hand you have energy and idealism, and on the other you have prison and the murder of dissidents. But the leaders meant well and, besides, nobody is perfect.
In a nutshell — emphasis on nut — the Democratic nominee for mayor has outed himself as a supporter of oppression, as long as it comes from the far left. He also expressed his fondness for “democratic socialism,” which is like calling himself a socialist.
The revelations in the New York Times about de Blasio’s warped world view, and history of aiding such despots as Fidel Castro, draw a ho-hum response from fellow lefties. Even if they didn’t know of de Blasio’s admiration for dictators, they surely recognize him as one of their own when he uses the code words of “fighting inequality and economic injustice.”
But for sensible New Yorkers, the emerging portrait of the man poised to be mayor should set off alarm bells. His past, combined with his pro-tax, anti-police agenda, confirm that De Blasio is not your garden-variety liberal like the Democrats he defeated in the primary. Their incremental approach is mainstream compared to his vision of social revolution.
His activism marks him as a hard-line leftist who, as an adult, spouted the idea that the United States was a problem in the world. As such, he’s a member of the “blame-America-first” club, the kind who doesn’t understand the fuss over Jane Fonda or why it’s not okay to sport Che Guevara T-shirts.
Where does he stand on the autocratic reign of the late Hugo Chavez? What about the Mideast — is Israel the problem? The more we know about him, the more we need to know.
And not because every mayor has a foreign policy. A politician’s philosophy tends to be consistent, abroad and at home. Someone who favors government power over individual liberty for Latin Americans is likely to hold the same view about New Yorkers.
A charitable way to describe de Blasio is that he is naive. But such charity is itself naive.
Consider that de Blasio and his wife snuck into Cuba for their honeymoon in 1994. It was apparently an illegal trip, which would explain why they first flew to Canada. It could also explain why they didn’t tell their children, according to their daughter, who said she recently learned of it. She hailed the trip as “badass.” Indeed.
She’s not alone in needing a lesson about the Cuba of those days. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant the end of vital subsidies and most of Cuba’s trade. The island nation, after 45 years of Castro and communism, looked to be in a death spiral.
America saw a chance for improving relations, and President Clinton sent Harry Belafonte and others to meet with Castro about easing the trade embargo. “Forget it, leave it as it is,” Castro responded, according to a member of the delegation.
Castro feared ordinary Cubans would revolt if they tasted the political, economic and religious freedom that would follow an opening. Nor did he and his gangster government want to give up control of the lucrative black market in goods and oil. A second Clinton delegation got the same brush-off, and to this day almost nothing has changed for the same reasons.
So when de Blasio went to help, he was not helping the Cuban people. Similarly, his support for the Sandinistas added to the misery of ordinary Nicaraguans, yet he remains proud.
“I have an activist’s desire to improve people’s lives,” he told the Times.
George Will recently observed that the whole point of modern liberalism is for liberals to feel good about themselves.
By that standard, de Blasio’s waltzes with dictators are a roaring success for his self-esteem. For everyone else, there is only tyranny and misery.
World is safer only to a Bam fool
He can’t help himself.
President Obama’s speech at the United Nations contained surprisingly forceful arguments about American leadership in a fractured and frightened world.
But he undermined its thesis with the ridiculous claim that “the world is more stable than it was five years ago.”
Actually, the bad guys are gaining ground.
The Arab Spring is a nightmare as al Qaeda offshoots pick up territory and strength across the globe.
Syria and Libya are bloody messes and Egypt is a jump ball. Jordan is in danger of collapse and Iraq is becoming a client state of Iran, which is five years closer to a nuke.
Afghanistan is in free fall and terrorists are emboldened in Pakistan. Much of Africa is unsafe, as illustrated by the Kenya mall massacre, and North Korea remains a nuclear wild card. Russia and China are asserting themselves everywhere.
Obama’s claim seems especially silly given how the UN was turned into a fortress for his appearance. Streets were blocked with trucks and air space was restricted.
He also says the “tide of war is receding,” but the only thing receding is American influence.
Meanwhile, Obama’s effort to engage Iran is defensible in theory, but is dangerous when he is cutting the military.
The sense of desperation, reflected in the hollow deal he signed on Syria’s chemical weapons, will stiffen the mullahs’ drive for the bomb.
If Obama truly believes things are getting better, he’s more likely to swallow Iranian lies about its nuclear intentions.
A mushroom cloud would be a terrible awakening.http://nypost.com/2013/09/25/de-blasios-warped-world-view-should-set-off-alarm-bells/