Far be it for this blogger to sound like a broken record…yes, there may be a smidgen of truth to the charge, but some issues take precedence over petty annoyances. Therefore, shouting from the rafters: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is an ideological hybrid – part red, part green – is a small price to pay for the greater good.
And for the record, the green part does not refer to his pilfering of taxpayer monies to fund green energy sink holes! No sirree. It revolves around – as most of the readers are aware – his kinship with the Brotherhood Mafia; a consortium of Islamists; head choppers too, who are Allah-bent on implanting Shariah Law over the west. Ain’t multicultural schemes grand?
As to his red side, the proof of the Radical-in-Chief’s proclivities can be found throughout his policies, as well as his alliances/comrades who support his campaign – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/22/world-leaders-openly-endorsing-the-radical-in-chief-are-the-most-vile-dregs-in-the-international-arena-why-are-they-simpatico-to-dear-leader-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.
Can anyone imagine the same reds championing Mitt Romney, or someone else like him? Do pigs fly?
Besides, if it looks like a socialist, Marxist, communist plan, then it is – https://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/05/if-it-looks-like-a-socialistmarxistcommunist-plan-it-is-peekingpeeling-back-into-obamas-looking-glass-his-surrogates-too-their-bomblets-waiting-to-explode-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/.
And so much more.
‘Obama’s Communist Cooperation Campaign Proceeds Apace’
“America’s most prominent, dedicated communists support Barack Obama and are actively campaigning on his behalf. If that sentence makes you uncomfortable, then you have two choices: continue reading and face your fear, or stop reading and get back to whatever activities you normally use to drown out disturbing thoughts.
In an age of mass media disinformation and distraction, one expects the politically neutered majority to find the legitimate vocabulary of open political discussion — freedom, communism, socialism, oppression — uncomfortable and strange. These words disturb their moral tranquility — that sense of “no big deal” normalcy that allows them to carry on with everyday activities, unperturbed by the kinds of questions that make prime-time entertainment seem…well, like a waste of time.
Unfortunately, many among the conservative establishment class share this reticence about using the correct words for things. They are squeamish about direct talk, but, being “thoughtful” types, they cannot just turn up the volume on the television and ignore the whole thing. Instead, they apply their sizeable IQs and plentiful degrees to inventing clever arguments to persuade themselves and each other that such talk is antiquated or irrelevant. And then they go on their merry way, offering expert analysis of the Obama presidency without ever once using any of those quaint old words from the supposedly simpler, bygone days.
Fine. If the professional career conservatives want to avoid labeling Obama himself, or any member of his administration or party, with any of those allegedly outdated words — bless Allen West — might they at least be willing to allow the true lexicon of “old-fashioned” (i.e., real) political discourse to enter the conversation around the fringes? For example, if a self-defined communist uses a speaking engagement to urge voters to get out and support Obama because his agenda is the surest practical path to communism, and if that communist is glowingly welcomed to this event by a Democratic congressman, might not a few Republican establishment pundits and statesmen just ask, politely and with the utmost moderation, “What’s with all these communists stumping for Obama?”
Okay, they will never ask any such question. One can theorize all day long about why they won’t: the educational establishment, the Frankfurt School, political correctness, cynical careerism, what have you. But while all such theorizing is important and useful, we must not forget that none of those reasons actually prevents anyone from reinserting proper English into the discussion. For those of us neither working in the establishment nor seeking a career there, and therefore not afraid of being judged “quaint” and “antiquated,” the question stands: what is with all these communists stumping for Obama?
Let us keep this short, simple, and, in the name of social justice, gender-equalized.
Angela Davis was the Communist Party USA’s vice presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984 and is a former Black Panther. In 1979, the Soviet Union awarded her its Lenin Peace Prize. (I kid you not; they also made her an honorary professor at Moscow State University.) Davis spoke in Detroit on October 25. One of the local dignitaries there to prepare the audience for her remarks was Congressman John Conyers, who noted the timeliness of Davis’ appearance on a “night where we not only remember history but plan how we’re going to make history…Dr. Davis, you’re right on time!”
CPUSA reporter Mark Walton informs us that the focus of Davis’s speech was the election. Attempting to battle the disappointment some of her comrades have expressed regarding the rate of progress in implementing the Obama agenda they voted for in 2008, she urged, “As we go to the polls, let us recall that no one thought it was possible to elect a black president.”
She then pleaded for patience with Obama’s practical implementation of the program, noting that “we should never expect to elect a president to lead us to the Promised Land…we have to do it for ourselves.”
After thus defending Obama and urging her audience to vote for him, as well as offering the obligatory condemnation of “Israeli apartheid,” she concluded by declaring that “we need peace, justice, equality, and socialism for us all.”
“Socialism for us all” — that’s her final, bottom-line argument for getting out and voting for Barack Obama.
Sam Webb is the current chairman of the CPUSA and has written the Party’s official endorsement of Obama’s 2012 re-election bid. On October 23, he was in Wisconsin for a round of appearances and radio interviews. In a perfect mirror of Obama’s own campaign talking points, Webb stressed the importance of stopping the Romney/Ryan plan to “undo 60 years of gains” in “women’s rights, immigrant justice and movements for racial and LGBT equality.” (Okay, Obama usually says “50 years” — trying to appear less extreme than the CPUSA, I guess.)
As CPUSA reporter Joseph Zimmerman explains, when asked about the current state of the Party, Chairman Webb emphasized the importance of working with “as broad a coalition as possible, similar to the sort of people’s movements of the 1930s and 1960s that lead [sic] to progressive legislation that families now count on in their daily lives.” In other words, communists must work for their agenda through Obama and the Democrats, as they did so effectively through the FDR and LBJ administrations.
In response to a question regarding the state of Wisconsin’s “workers” movement since the failed recall of Governor Walker, Webb maintained that the setback has strengthened the movement, and declared that in this presidential election, “the message will be clear. The American working class is going forward, not back.”
Going “forward.” How about that?
For the umpteenth time, the question for all those considering voting for Obama who do not actively support the intentional overthrow of the American constitutional republic in favor of an openly socialist authoritarian regime is a simple one: “Why do you think the leadership of the Communist Party USA is out in the battleground states during these final days of the campaign, aggressively stumping for Obama?”
The answer, of course, is self-evident, as well as being explicitly and repeatedly stated by the communists themselves: they believe that Obama’s agenda is the most practical means to the socialist workers’ state.
A final question for the non-America-hating Obama “moderates”: “If the CPUSA’s longstanding party-line judgment on Obama is correct — that is, if his agenda really is the surest path to communism — why are you still supporting him?”
If you believe that the communists are completely misjudging Obama, and that his platform is not actually consistent with their goals, then I challenge you to take a look at their own case for his agenda and try to disprove their assessment. The same challenge goes out to all those in the Republican establishment who have spent the last four years inventing a new euphemistic vocabulary in order to escape the uncomfortable demands of correct English.
Still “going forward”?