Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Friday, May 25, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Unholy Alliance: How the Left Supports the Terrorists at Home, Con't By: David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | Saturday, September 25, 2004

To read part one of this article, click here.

The rule erecting a barrier between intelligence and criminal investigations had been put in place by Attorney General Janet Reno in July 1995.[42] Referred to as “the wall,” it caused a breakdown in the collaboration between investigators that national security officials had long realized was a danger to public safety. In the words of Mary Jo White, a Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney who was the most seasoned al Qaeda prosecutor before 9/11: “The walls are the single greatest danger we have blocking our ability to obtain and act on [terrorist] information.”[43] One of the important innovations of the Patriot Act was to eliminate these walls. This made possible the collaboration between intelligence agencies and the FBI and led directly to the arrest of Sami al-Arian and his associates.


Another post-9/11 security reform was removing the so-called “Levi” guidelines implemented by the Ford Administration, which barred the FBI from surveilling radical organizations unless they could be shown to have committed (or be planning to commit) specific criminal acts. Under these guidelines, a terrorist organization—such as Abudallah Azzam’s Alkhifa or Sami al-Arian’s Islamic Crusade for Palestine—could recruit soldiers and funds for a holy war against the United States and be insulated from FBI scrutiny unless they could be tied to an actual criminal act. In the new age of terror, this could mean an act as destructive as 9/11 itself.


Yet it was precisely these provisions of the Patriot Act to which the left objected and against which it mounted a ferocious national campaign. For more than half a century the left had defended revolutionaries and agents of revolutionary states who had broken American laws. Radical legal organizations like the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights, as well as Sami al-Arian’s National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, had been created for the express purpose of doing so. They supplied the lead counsels for violent radicals and terrorist suspects both before and after 9/11 and were themselves vocal antagonists of America’s wars and its national security defenses.


It was the idea of terrorism itself that radicals found problematic. In a lengthy statement of its position, the Center for Constitutional Rights complained, “the [Patriot] Act creates a new category of crime, domestic terrorism, which blurs the line between speech and criminal activity. Section 802 of the Act defines domestic terrorism as, ‘acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of criminal laws [that] appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.’ This definition is so vague that acts of civil disobedience may be construed to violate the law. … Thus, a spontaneous demonstration that blocks the path of an ambulance might invite charges of domestic terrorism under the new law.”[44]


In fact, exactly this kind of civil disobedience that served terrorist agendas was close to what American radicals had actually planned for the opening stages of the War in Iraq. As the left-wing magazine Salon.com reported, “If bombs start falling on Iraq, peace activists say, expect insurgency at home.”[45] On the eve of America’s engagement, Salon explained, a radical group called the Military Globalization Project announced plans to march on the Vandenberg military base in the state of Washington, which was coordinating military operations in Iraq via satellite. The radicals identified the base as “the electronic nerve center of the global-surveillance-targeting, weapons-guidance and military-command satellites that will largely direct the war.” Their express purpose was to disrupt the war effort. Fortunately, this particular plan for “civil disobedience” was discouraged when the base commander warned that trespassers would be shot on sight.[46] American radicals were not ready yet to actually die for Saddam Hussein.


Other radical groups, however, did stage civil disobedience demonstrations that were calculated to block busy downtown hubs in major cities across the nation, and timed for the outbreak of hostilities. In Los Angeles, one tenth of the entire police force—900 officers –—who might otherwise have been engaged in homeland defense efforts were tied up handling these “civil disobedience” protests.[47] If al Qaeda or some other foreign terrorist organization had been able to mount attacks in these cities coinciding with the outbreak of the war, the activities of domestic radicals could have obstructed ambulances and other Homeland Security defense services. It was this kind of political support for terror that the legal radicals were determined to protect.


Any legislation as comprehensive and complex as the Patriot Act inevitably has gray areas over which legal jurists might reasonably disagree when striking an appropriate balance between security requirements and civil liberty needs. The principal organizations opposed to the Patriot Act, however, were not “civil libertarians” in a primary sense. They were radical activists whose agendas went well beyond their expressed concerns about constitutional issues, and whose concern for constitutional issues was subordinate to the “higher” goals of their radical agendas. These ulterior agendas were the inspiration for their blanket condemnation of the Patriot Act and the near hysteria with which they expressed their objections to its specific provisions.


When it had been put to a congressional vote, the Patriot Act was passed overwhelmingly by both parties in Congress with only one dissenting vote in the Senate and only 66 in the House. Its terms were far milder than measures that had been adopted in America’s previous wars by revered historical figures like Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus and by Franklin Roosevelt who relocated and interned Japanese Americans away from coastal areas as a security measure during World War II.[48] The Patriot Act stayed well within the parameters of established law. Its enforcement provisions, including extraordinary searches, were made subject to judicial review and required judicial writs and warrants to authorize them. Yet the attacks on the Act described it in extreme terms as “unpatriotic” and a “war on our freedoms,” misrepresenting it as, “arguably the most far-reaching and invasive legislation passed since the espionage act of 1917 and the sedition act of 1918.”[49]


Directed by organizations like the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and People for the American Way, radicals mobilized legislators in local and state governments to obstruct the enforcement of the law. As of June 2004, 320 cities towns and counties and, as well as four states had adopted resolutions condemning the Patriot Act, many refusing to cooperate with Homeland Security officials in the enforcement of its security measures.[50] The ACLU’s model resolution—posted on its website and designed for municipalities to copy—came close to incitement to sedition:


Therefore, be it resolved that the council of the city of ______ …

Directs the Police Department of the City of _________ to:

(a)    refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws;

(b)   seek adequate written assurances from federal authorities that residents of the City of _____who are placed in federal custody will not be subjected to military detention; secret detention; secret immigration proceedings; or detention without access to counsel, and refrain from assisting federal authorities to obtain custody of such individuals absent such assurances.

(c)    refrain, whether acting alone or with federal or state law enforcement officers, from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership unless such information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct;

(d)   refrain from the practice of stopping drivers or pedestrians for the purpose of scrutinizing their identification documents without particularized suspicion of criminal activity;…[51]


No opposition to the Patriot Act was more revealing than the determination of the leftist legal groups to prevent security officials from scrutinizing radical Islamic religious groups and political organizations aligned with radical Islam and its terrorist jihad. Their zeal in this matter revealed how the legal battle was really a frontline of the war on terror itself. During the 1970s, there had been more than a thousand domestic bombings connected with the protests against the Vietnam War. One terrorist cult, the Weather Underground, had collaborated with adversary governments in Cuba and North Vietnam and carried out dozens of bombings of targets that included the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol. Moreover, they had been able to do so with relative impunity. Despite the fact that the Weather leaders had declared “war” on the United States in official “communiques” and law enforcement knew their identities, the FBI was never able to arrest their leadership or interdict its operations. In part this was because of the support and protection these terrorists received from American leftists and in part because the FBI was hamstrung in its investigations by restrictions on its activities in the name of civil liberties. If the Weather bombers had been in league with Islamic radicals and their arsenal had included biological and chemical weapons, the consequences of their violence might have been catastrophic.[52]


Such considerations carried no weight with the radical legal organizations opposing the Patriot Act for the simple reason that they and their members identified with the political movement that spawned the terrorist group. Indeed, the principal (and unrepentant) leader of the Weather Underground (America’s first terrorist cult) is now a prominent member of the legal left and its opposition to the Patriot Act. Bernardine Dohrn is a law professor at Northwestern University, a prominent figure in the American Bar Association,[53] and a vocal defender of the terror she pursued in the Vietnam era. In an article written in the spring of 2003 for the Marxist periodical Monthly Review (“Homeland Imperialism: Fear and Resistance”), Dohrn characterizes the “war at home” as a “resistance” to U.S. imperialism, and describes counter-terrorism efforts as a McCarthy witch-hunt and “the USA Patriot Act and now the bill creating the Homeland Security Department as … the actual tools of repression.”[54] According to Dorhn: “Prosecutions are underway that are reminiscent of the indictments of the early-fifties McCarthy period and the conspiracy indictments of the early seventies pre-Watergate Mitchell Department of Justice, the two most recent periods of overtly political repression. For example, [Attorney General] John Ashcroft has orchestrated a series of high profile indictments against Islamic charities, including the Holy Land Foundation in Texas … ”


In fact, the indictment against the Holy Land Foundation and other “charities” had nothing to do with their political advocacy or Islamic identity. The Holy Land Foundation had been launched with seed money provided by Moussa Abu Marzouk, the leader of the terrorist organization, Hamas. Marzouk had been arrested in the United States in 1995 with documents that established his Hamas position and detailed “a $10 million commercial and non-profit empire in the United States, which he controlled allegedly to finance Hamas operations.”[55] Like other Islamic radicals, Marzouk’s defense was

provided by the Center for Constitutional Rights and one of its lead lawyers, Stanley Cohen, who was an attorney and an advocate for both Hamas and the Syrian government. Marzouk was eventually deported and wound up in Syria as head of Hamas’s terrorist operations there.[56]


As with Al-Arian, when the Holy Land Foundation was raided, the legal left rallied to its defense. They were joined in their protests by the radical Muslim “civil liberties” fronts, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the American Muslim Council (AMC) which claimed the raid was part of “an anti-Muslim witch-hunt promoted by the pro-Israel lobby in America.”[57] Documents seized in the raid, revealed that the Holy Land Foundation was part of a large network of organizations that Hamas had created through Marzouk’s efforts, and that linked the Islamic Association for Palestine, CAIR, the Muslim Students Association and al Qaeda.[58]


The common political agendas of the legal left and their terrorist clients are exemplified by Lynne Stewart, the attorney for the “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel Rachman. Since her indictment by the Ashcroft Justice Department, Stewart has become their martyr and icon.


Lynne Stewart is a protégé of William Kuntsler and Ramsey Clark.  Clark had originally suggested that Stewart sign on as attorney for the blind sheik.[59] Following her indictment for providing material support for the sheik’s terrorist activities, Stewart—like Sami al-Arian before her—received full support from her political comrades. Her decision to aid and abet her terrorist client was defended as a civil liberties matter by the ACLU, the American Bar Association, the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights. She was invited by radical law professors to speak at law schools across the country including Stanford, Seattle, and William Mitchell where she addressed a “Social Justice Dinner” sponsored by the National Lawyers Guild. These accolades encouraged leftist law students at the City University of New York to attempt to present her with the school’s Public Interest Lawyer of the Year Award at graduation ceremonies in 2003. A petition including 73 names—more than half the graduating class—was sent to administrators. But after the award was leaked to the press, CUNY law school dean Kristin Booth Glen informed students via e-mail that Stewart would not be honored. The reason given was not that she had betrayed her country or broken the law, but that the award “could lead to consequences that could be damaging.”[60]


Stewart was a speaker at the Socialist Scholars Conference, an annual gathering of the intellectual left, where she shared a panel with Columbia professor Todd Gitlin and others. She was a featured speaker at the anti-war demonstration sponsored by United for Peace and Justice on February 15, 2003. The sentiments she expressed on these occasions were the banal and vulgar clichés of the anti-American and Communist left. As the final keynote speaker at the National Lawyers Guild National Convention in 2003, Stewart described the enemy—corporate capitalism—as “a consummate evil that unleashes its dogs of war on the helpless; an enemy motivated only by insatiable greed … In this enemy there is no love of the land or the creatures that live there, no compassion for the people. This enemy will destroy the air we breathe and the water we drink as long as the dollars keep filling up their money boxes.… ”[61] The enemy was the Great Satan, the same enemy that motivated Stewart’s client to plot the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels.


Lynne Stewart’s rant reflects not only the shared anti-American agendas of Islamic jihadists and the radical left, but also the hypocrisy it displays in its complaint against the Patriot Act—that it violates First Amendment rights. In her Monthly Review interview, Stewart was asked to imagine that she was part of a revolutionary government that had “liberated” its people from the horrors of capitalism. If Stewart herself were to become part of such a government, the interviewer wanted to know, was there a point at which she would think that monitoring and controlling the counter-revolutionary adversaries of that government was acceptable? Her answer: “I don’t have any problem with Mao or Stalin or the Vietnamese leaders or certainly Fidel locking up people they see as dangerous. Because so often, dissidence has been used by the greater powers to undermine a people’s revolution.”[62] In other words, totalitarian repression—complete with firing squads and gulags—is fine for Communist states, but criminalizing acts that aid and abet terrorists in a democracy is not.


In their defense of America’s terrorist enemies, the organizations of the legal left are reminiscent of Communist Party fronts of the Cold War era. One of these was the National Lawyers Guild itself. Another was the Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, which was created by the Communist Party to defend its leaders and organizers—many of whom were immigrants—from being deported because of their activities in behalf of the Soviet empire. Even though the Communist Party was a totalitarian organization whose goal was the establishment of a political dictatorship in the United States, it was able to recruit many prominent liberals to sit on the board of the Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born and to argue that in defending the internal enemies of American democracy, the organization was actually defending the Constitution itself. [63]


In a symposium on homeland security measures that appeared in the Boston Review of Books, a group of left-wing legal experts commented on a paper by Georgetown law professor David Cole. The Cole paper was an assault on the Patriot Act, as were most of the commentaries. These included essays by Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe and Juliette Kayyem, a former Clinton Justice Department official.[64]


Among the participants in the symposium was another Georgetown law professor, Mari Matsuda, an advisory board member of the ACLU. This is an interesting fact since Mari Matsuda is one of the legal architects of the notorious “speech codes,” that were imposed by college administrations in the 1980s and 1990s to suppress words that were designated “insensitive” or “hate speech.” Matsuda is a co-author of Words That Wound, the primary text defending what is now generally recognized as blatant censorship and the most serious infringement of First Amendment rights in half a century. Yet the ACLU on whose board Matsuda sits wants the public (and the courts) to believe that its primary concern in opposing the concept of material support for terrorism is its desire to protect free speech.


Cole’s symposium paper was titled, “Their Liberties, Our Security,” and his charge was that Americans were sacrificing the liberties of aliens and immigrants in the name of their own security. Matsuda’s contribution, “A Dangerous Place,” began with an epigraph from the 1940 annual report of the long defunct American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born: “Attacks on the rights of non-citizens are disguised attacks on the rights of all Americans, native and foreign born.”


In a self-revealing explanation to her readers, Matsuda wrote, “The American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born was a progressive civil liberties organization or a Communist front, or both, depending upon which side of history you choose.” Only a delusional member of the Communist left could make a statement like this—someone who believed that Communists were on the “right side” of history, as well as someone uninterested in the facts, since there is not a scintilla of doubt that the Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born was a Communist Party front, which subordinated any civil liberties concerns to the Party’s agendas.[65] Thus, one year after the Committee statement quoted by Matsuda, claiming that an attack on the foreign born is an attack on all Americans, the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born actively supported the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II [66] —an infringement of the civil liberties of the foreign born (whether justified by national security considerations or not), which Matsuda herself describes as an enormously significant “injustice” in her article. The American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born betrayed Japanese immigrants because it saw their internment as a necessary measure to win the war, and it wanted to win the war because its ideological motherland, the Soviet Union, had been attacked by the Axis forces. 

Matsuda’s claim that facts depend on which side of history you are is an expression of the totalitarian mentality of the radical left and explains how this left maintains its institutional loyalties and political attitudes across generations and is thus able to forge alliances of convenience with Nazis in one era and Islamic terrorists and their anti-American jihads in another. It also shows the acuity of President Bush’s remarks to Congress following the 9/11 attacks, in which he declared: “We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.”


[1] Jess Bravin, “Judge Deals Blow to the Patriot Act,” Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2004;

[2] Eric Lichtblau, “Citing Free Speech, Judge Voids Part of Antiterror Act, New York Times, January 27, 2004

[3] Op. cit.

[4] Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

[5] U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Humanitarian Law Project et al v. Reno et al http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/044DE357BD726D7288256DF10063BDE4/$file/0255082.pdf?openelement

[6] A dossier of cases can be found in Jules Lobel, Lost Causes, NY 2004. Lobel is vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

[7] In the early seventies Arthur Kinoy met with the author who was then editor of the radical magazine Ramparts and handed him a 35 page manifesto written by Kinoy and Kunstler calling for the formation of a “new Communist Party.”

[8] Jules Lobel, Lost Causes, op. cit., p. 186.

[9] George Packer, “Terrorist Lawyer,” New York Times, September 23, 2002

[10] Eric Lichtblau, who covered the case for the New York Times, explained in a phone interview with the author that this was the Times’ standard practice.

[11] Michael Radu, “Terrorism Is Free Speech,” www.frontpagemag.com, February 3, 2004. Radu is a terrorism expert at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

[12] Jean Pearce, “Humanitarian Law Project,” www.frontpagemag.com, April 14, 2004.  Aris Anagnos, the funder of the Anagnos Peace Center is a pro-Castro real estate magnate who funded the Christic Institute’s RICO suit against the CIA for alleged drug-trafficking and support of assassinations in Nicaragua. The suit was thrown out when most of the “witnesses” turned out not to be real people. Ralph Fertig, the principal director of The Human Law Project is a lawyer for (what has become) the far left Americans for Democratic Action and a board member of the Pacifica Foundation a radical public radio network whose board Cagan chaired. Lydia Brazon, the number two executive at The Humanitarian Law Project is also on the Pacifica Board and like Fertig a radical anti-war activist.

[13] Times, op. cit.

[14] www.ombwatch.org. Tim Visser and Kay Guinane, “Patriot games: The USA Patriot Act and Its Impact on Nonprofit Organizations. This article covers the cases from a left-wing perspective.

[15] Washington Times, January 8, 2004

[16] Radu, op. cit.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Timmerman, op. cit. pp. 276 et seq.

[19] Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, NY 2002, p. 37

[20] William R. Hawkins and Erin Anderson, The Open Borders Lobby and National Security After 9/11, Los Angeles 2004, a Center for the Study of Popular Culture book. The original article is available at www.frontpagemag.com

[21] Ibid.

[22] Emerson, op. cit., p.84 and p.2

[23] Emerson, op. cit., pp. 128 et seq. Cf. also, Gilles Kepel, Jihad: The Trail of Political Islam, op. cit., pp. 144 et seq

[24] Emerson, op. cit., p. 130

[25] Emerson, op. cit., p. 131

[26] Emerson, op. cit., p. 134.

[27] Packer, “Terrorist Lawyer,” New York Times, op. cit.

[28]Monthly Review, November 25, 2002. Reprinted in www.frontagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=4764

[29] New York Times, DATE 1995

[30] Emerson, op. cit. pp. 122, 121

[31] Cited in State of Michigan, Washtenaw County Circuit Court, Case 02-1150-CZ, Richard Dorfman and Adi Neuman v. The University of Michigan

[32] Emerson, op. cit. pp. 197 et seq; pp. 203 et seq;

[33] David Tell, “Al-Arian Nation,” The Weekly Standard, February 3, 2003

[34] http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/flm/pr/022003indict.pdf

[35] Emerson, op. cit., pp., 109 et seq;

[36] Robert Spencer, “Al-Arian: Terrorist Professor and His Campus Allies,” www.frontpagemag.com, February 26, 2003

[37] Salon.com January 19, 2002. http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/01/19/bubba/

[38] The AAUP’s position is analyzed in Nathan Giller, “American Association of University Professors: Lobby for the Left,” www.frontpagemag.com, June 4, 2003

[39] Ken Timmerman, Preachers of Hate, p. 273; Ron Radosh, “The Case of Sami Al-Arian, www.frontpagemag.com, February 8, 2002; Jonathan Schanzer, “Professors for Terrorist Al-Arian,” www.frontpagemag.com, February 24, 2003

[40] Sarah Shields, “Sami al-Arian and the Dungeon: A Fable for our Time,” www.CommonDreams.org, November 16, 2003

[41] Heather MacDonald, “Why The FBI Didn’t Stop 9/11,” City Journal, Autumn 2002

[42] The rule was called, “Procedures for Contacts Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations.”

[43] Ibid.

[44] The State of Civil Liberties: One Year Later, A Report Issued By the Center for Constitutional Rights, 2002

[45] Michelle Goldberg, “The Peace Movement Prepares to Escalate,” Salon.com, March 14, 2003  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/14/war/index.html

[46] Ibid.


[48] The relocation, whatever its faults, was planned after intelligence reports showed many Japanese immigrants, loyal to the Japanese emperor, were involved in antiwar activities and spying for the enemy. Cf. Michelle Malkin, In Defense of Internment: The World War II Round-up And What it Means for America’s War On Terror, NY 2004

[49] Bill Perkins, New York City council member and sponsor of a resolution condemning the Act. Michelle Garcia, “NY City Council Passes Anti-Patriot Act Measure,” Washington Post, February 5, 2004. Perkins was also the sponsor of a bill to name a New York Street after Communist Party leader Benjamin Davis, who was ousted from the City Council after being convicted under the Smith Act in 1949. “Benjamin Davis is a predecessor of mine who followed Adam Clayton Powell and was a progressive force for social justice,” Mr. Perkins said. “I’m looking into his story, ideally, to resurrect his contributions to the city, the black community and the cause of social justice.” Errol Louis, “Perkins Seeks to Name Street for Communist, Would Honor Davis, Who Backed Stalin.” New York Sun, April 9, 2004; Richard Leone, president of the Century Foundation and editor of The War On Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. Cited in Heather MacDonald, “Straight Talk About Homeland Security,” City Journal, August 11, 2003. This is a thoroughgoing critique of the critics of the Act.

[50] As of February 19, 2004. A complete list is posted on the website of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, www.bordc.org

[51] http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11256&c=206

[52] Peter Collier and David Horowitz, Destructive Generation, NY 1989 contains a history of the WeatherUnderground.

[53] Dohrn is a member of two important committees of the American Bar Association and was appointed to a project of the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ACLU. In 2004, she was the commencement speaker at Pitzer College, a top-tier liberal arts school in California.

[54] Monthly Review, July-August, 2003. http://www.monthlyreview.org/0703dohrn.htm

[55] Timmerman, op. cit. pp. 276 et seq.

[56] Ibid. p. 277; Michael Tremoglie, “Stanley Cohen: Terrorist Mouthpiece,” www.frontpagemag.com, December 17, 2002

[57] Timmerman, op. cit. pp. 277 et seq.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Packer, “Terrorist Lawyer,” New York Times, op. cit.

[60] Erick Stackelback, “Cheerleaders for Terrorism,” www.frontpagemag.com June 17, 2003; New York Lawyer, May 2, 2003

[61] Lynne Stewart, “Law for the People 2003: Demand Democracy!” Closing speech at the National Lawyer’s Guild Convention, Minneapolis, October 26, 2003. Text available on the National Lawyers Guild website, www.nlg.org www.nlg.org/members/convention/stewart.html

[62] Monthly Review, November 25, 2002

[63] John W. Sherman, A Communist Front at Mid-Century: The American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born, 1933-1959, Westport, 2001.

[64] Boston Review of Books, December 2002/January 2003.  http://bostonreview.net/BR27.6/contents.html.

[65] John W. Sherman, op. cit. According to Sherman, the initiative for founding the ACPFB originated within the Communist Party and the organization itself was only a nominally independent successor to the more explicitly party-controlled National Council for the Protection of the Foreign Born founded in 1923. Sherman shows that the members of the organization’s staff were either secret members of the Party or were fellow-travelers who accepted Party guidance and control. The policy positions of the ACPFB faithfully followed the Party line. Sherman’s research does not even take into account the files in the Soviet archives. Cf. the review of Sherman’s book by John Earl Haynes, in the Journal of American History, v. 90, Issue 2, February 3, 2004.

[66] John W. Sherman, op. cit., p.93

David Horowitz is the founder of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and author of the new book, One Party Classroom.

We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com