WASHINGTON – How deep and wide is the Communist Party USA’s support for Hillary Clinton?
It’s unambiguous. It’s 100 percent. And it’s uncompromising.
The CPUSA, birthed by Josef Stalin’s pocketbooks and sustained through the fall of the Soviet Union by KGB subsidies, is all in for Hillary.
The party is also excited about America’s corporate press jumping on the bandwagon with support for its candidate.
“Unprecedented early endorsements of Clinton have appeared in the Washington Post and Houston Chronicle, which described Trump as a ‘danger to the Republic,'” the editorial states with approval. “Many refer to Trump as an extreme authoritarian or worse, as a fascist.”
On the other hand, the Democrats meet the political litmus test with flying rainbow colors:
“The message from the DNC was the polar opposite. It reflected the broad electoral coalition backing Clinton, including the labor movement, African American, Latino, Asian and other communities of color, women, the LGBT community, youth, environmentalists, immigrant and disabled rights advocates.”
However, the CPUSA is concerned that not all ‘progressives” are on board for Clinton.
“But there are still some progressives, including some Bernie or Bust activists, who refuse to support Clinton,” the editorial says. “They deeply despise her ties to Wall Street and call her a warmonger and a liar. They see nothing positive in Clinton, her historic candidacy or the Democratic Party platform. They dismiss the broad electoral coalition, including the labor movement, that is backing Clinton and that has shaped the platform, a coalition with obvious leverage. To them, she is as bad as Trump.”
It continues: “Some are voting for Green Party candidate Jill Stein to ‘send a message.’ Still others hope a Clinton defeat provokes a crisis in the Democratic Party leading to its break-up.”
Sounding like a press release from the DNC, the Communist Party editorial explains: “This is a flawed strategy. First, like it or not, we have a two party system. One of the two major parties will win and govern. If this were a parliamentary democracy different tactics would be called for.”
“To call for a vote against Clinton is to separate oneself from this electoral coalition,” it states.
Not only do the Communists want Hillary to win, they want her to win big, explaining “mandates are real. This election will be a national referendum on racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia. The aim should be a landslide defeat of Trump and a decisive rejection of hate. The election of Clinton as the first woman president would make history. A landslide would not end sexism, but it would represent a mighty blow just as the election of President Obama was a blow against racism. It would advance democracy. A landslide makes it more likely that GOP congressional and state legislative majorities can be ousted and an end put to the politics of obstruction. Most people tend to vote straight ticket.”
“A landslide will give added weight to the progressive platform adopted at the Democratic Convention and give encouragement to appoint progressive Supreme Court justices,” the editorial continues. “It would be added pressure against backsliding on opposition to TPP and other trade deals. It will put public opinion and the movements in a better position to pressure against Clinton’s tendency toward military adventurism and policies of regime change.”
Again, the CPUSA warns off against voting Green.
“Voting Green Party separates activists and voters from these key forces,” the editorial says. “One cannot credibly engage in mobilizations of labor, civil rights, women’s organizations, LGBT community, and environmentalists while also advocating voting Green Party.”
Joseph Farah, the founder of WND.com and a former revolutionary communist himself in his youth, said the CPUSA’s coverage was so effusive in its enthusiasm it put MSNBC to shame.
“Back in the day when Stalinists Gus Hall and Angela Davis were regularly nominated by the party as presidential and vice presidential candidates every four years, the U.S. Communists actually had beefs with the Democrats,” he said. “But, in recent years, the party ceased those efforts in favor of a united front with the Democrats, with whom they have very few differences, if any.”
The Communist Party was so eager to endorse Barack Obama for re-election, it couldn’t wait until 2012. It did so a year before the campaign officially got under way. The party was jubilant in 2008, when Obama won his first race for the presidency.
Hailing Barack Obama’s win as a victory for the “working class,” the Communist Party USA called on the president-elect to carry out his promises, including his noted commitment to “spread the wealth.” An editorial by the People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the party, said the victory was for “workers of all job titles, professions, shapes, colors, sizes, hairstyles and languages.”
In 2009, President Obama’s leadership was “one of the best opportunities that Americans have had in decades,” declared a civil-rights activist addressing an overflow crowd at a gathering sponsored by the official newspaper of the Community Party USA.
The party was never disappointed by Obama. Here’s how it critiqued Obama’s final State of the Union Address earlier this year:
“In his final SOTU address, President Obama projected a bold vision for a more socially and economically just nation while appealing to the hopes of the American people. … President Obama pointedly rejected right-wing-Republican policy solutions including repeal of Obamacare, aggressive military buildup and action, tax cuts to the wealthy, blocking common-sense gun control … He also rejected efforts to exploit the fears of the American people using hate, anti-Muslim bigotry, racism and division.
“The challenges facing the nation and planet are immense: climate crisis, massive concentration and inequality of wealth, growing poverty and declining wages, joblessness, including skyrocketing unemployment in the African-American community, over $1 trillion in student debt, a crumbling infrastructure, underfunded schools and social services, lack of affordable housing, a frayed retirement security system, etc.”
David Kupelian, managing editor of WND.com, had this to say earlier this year in a commentary on the shrinking divide between the two parties: “Amazing as it may seem, Barack Obama has dragged the entire Democratic Party so far leftward over the past seven-plus years that today’s Democratic Party has become almost indistinguishable from the Communist Party.
“If that sounds hyperbolic to you, just stop reading right now and pull up the CPUSA’s website,” he added. “Spend some time reading and digesting it. Try to discern any major differences between the Communist Party’s concerns, sensibilities and solutions – on issues from ‘gay’ rights, to unfettered immigration, to renewable energy, to wealth redistribution, to condemning cops as racist, to universal health care – and those of today’s Democratic Party.”
Hillary Clinton’s association with radical thought dates back to at least 1969, when Obama was just 8 years old, himself a protégé early on of Frank Marshall Davis, a loyal Communist Party activist. Interest has been largely fueled by Clinton’s suppressed and later released 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College offering an extensive, largely positive critique of Saul Alinsky and his work.
Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley College senior thesis was titled “There Is Only the Fight … : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” The thesis received attention when it was released after the Bill Clinton presidency. According to reports, in early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley keep the thesis on “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky confidential and not release any copies.
Clinton was said to have met with Alinsky several times in 1968, when she was writing her thesis. In her most recent memoir, Clinton wrote that she rejected a job offer from Alinsky to instead attend law school.
Read the history of the attacks on marriage and the family, from the days of Karl Marx and Margaret Sanger to those now pushing for mandatory recognition of same-sex “marriage,” in “Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage.”
Last year, WND found that long after Alinsky’s death in June 1972, a group Clinton co-chaired maintained a working relationship with Alinsky’s main community organizing outfit, the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF. The partnership extended into the 1990s and yielded influence over the education policy of the Bill Clinton presidency, it can now be disclosed. Founded by Alinsky in 1940 and run by him until his death, the IAF is a national community-organizing network established to implement Alinsky’s expansive organizing agenda. After Alinsky’s death, the IAF was taken over by his longtime associate and designated successor, Ed Chambers, who became the group’s executive director.
Dick Morris, a former top political adviser to Bill Clinton both as governor of Arkansas and as president, noted to WND that education reform “is the key issue Hillary Clinton used to propel herself independently to the forefront of Arkansas politics during Bill’s governorship.”
“The revelation of how closely linked her efforts were back in the 80s – and have been since – to an Alinsky radical front group is deeply disturbing and expands our understanding of Hillary’s fundamental radicalism and commitment to the new left of Saul Alinsky,” Morris said.
David Horowitz, whose parents were members of the Communist Party and who himself became a leader in the new left movement of the 1960s and 1970s before rejecting it, said the revelation is significant though not surprising.
“When radicals set out to fundamentally transform a society, the first institution they attack is the educational system which under their influence becomes a system of indoctrination in radical ideas,” he told WND.
Interestingly, the Communist Party USA has not changed its stripes in any significant way. It hasn’t walked back its 100 percent commitment to Communism. What has changed is the Democratic Party.
The drift leftward hit warp speed beginning in the 1990s, according to Farah. That’s the year Bernie Sanders was first elected to Congress and founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
“One of his first actions in Congress was to found the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was partnered with the Democratic Socialists of America,” recounts Farah. “No surprise there, because most Americans have no idea of what the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Democratic Socialists of America are really all about.”
Farah reported on the antics of the caucus in 1998.
“Back then the Congressional Progressive Caucus shared a website with the DSA,” he wrote. “In other words, these two organizations, one government-funded and the other a tax-exempt nonprofit, were of like mind and on the same page politically. What I found back then was astonishing – even for me. On this shared website, that was quickly scrubbed after I exposed it, was a collection of songs I can almost hear Bernie, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus singing in harmony. One of my favorites back then – was ‘Red Revolution’ sung to the tune of ‘Red, Red Robbin.'”
When the Red Revolution
brings its solution
There’ll be no more lootin’
when we start shootin’
that Wall Street throng
Wake up you proletarians
Don’t act like seminarians
Build a workers’ republic
Exploitation and degradation
you won’t find here
Surplus value and capital will disappear
I’m just a Red again,
saying what I’ve said again,
When the Red Revolution … da, da, da, da
brings its solution … da, da, da, da, da
“How do these people get away with denying they are redder than a robin’s breast while singing songs like this – and printing them on the Internet?” asked Farah incredulously.
The song list also included lyrics to “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie,” sung to the tune of “Frere Jacques.”
Are you sleeping, are you sleeping,
And when the revolution comes,
We’ll kill you all with knives and guns,
“For those not trained in the lingo of communism, the dictionary definition of ‘bourgeoisie,’ is, and I quote: ‘(in Marxist theory) the class that, in contrast to the proletariat or wage-earning class, is primarily concerned with property values,'” wrote Farah. “If you’ve got property, if you’re part of the middle class, these people not only want to raise your taxes, they want to kill you with knives and guns!”