Communists Discuss their Worldview and the Obama Administration

Communist Jed Brandt alternately praises and condemns the Obama Administration for persuing the Communists' goals but not doing it fast enough for their liking. Also, we have confirmation that the Communists consider Glenn Beck their enemy.  So Glenn goes up another notch in my book.

Just listen to these all the way through.   Then pick up the rest of this post below the videos.


 

 "The idea that some people have rights and priviledges that are not granted to all human beings, and the solution to that problem is called 'Communsism' and 'Socialism'".

Among the things we learned is that calling Communists "Communists" is "red baiting" -- I guess to somehow de-legitimize calling Communists "Communists".  Of course then he goes on to say that they should be proud to call themselves Communists and Socialists.  They're so conflicted.  It is telling that he says they've lost every single battle in this country.

Now to some of the language and talking points:

• Rent Control
• Civil Rights (in my vocabulary, a good thing. But they have a way of re-defining words without telling us)
• Communists had access to the White House during the FDR Administration
• White Supremecy
• US Imperialism
• Democratic Reform
• Fundamentally New Society
• Meet the Needs of the Vast Majority of People
• Masses of working people on a Global Scale
• White Fanatic
• White Republic
• I demand that we have health care for people
• "We will TAKE your insurance companies, we will take the farms in this country, we will shut down the military apparatus of this country"
• We have to help bring this government down
• We have to help destroy this system

" We have to help destroy this system and that requires increasing the alienation that working-class people feel."

So they need to agitate.   Huh.

"The way Change is going to happen in this country is going to be through the destruction of this thing called the United States of America."

Change.  Fundamentally New Society.  Meet the needs of the people.  On a global scale.  Our opponents are racists.  They're imperialists.

Any of this sound at all familiar?
 
Well at one point he's busy bashing the Obama administration for being more of the same imperialist war-mongering racist system -- and I love these bit of fuzzed leftist "logic"

"We can change the definition of what 'whiteness' means"

The Left is always about changing the meanings of things or changing names for things when they become inconvenient.

"When Obama says that there will not be health care for illegal immigrants, and I might add, abortion -- what he is saying, right, very clearly, is that America always has 10% of its population enslaved."

So Obama is for our goals, but can't push it through to people who are here illegally because the people of this country are against it (never mind, this time, that "Democracy" they claim to be all about).   So he's persuing our goals, but not on a grand enough scale and certainly not fast enough.
 
But later he says something that's pretty telling.

"When the Los Angeles riots and rebellions happened, I was there and it changed my life. A few years before that I said it's all over. I watched 1989, I watched Tieanamen Square, I watched the Berlin Wall, I said it's all over - right? But then Los Angeles erupted and the people who were told they did not matter they burned that city to the ground. And the next time this fight happens I want an organized fight that's progressive and not simply arson. I watched France burn, and God damn it, I'm in with those people. That's it. We have a Left, there's a fight to be had, and we should stop pussyfooting around about it."

Wow.  So to him the collapse of the Soviet Union was bad.  The fall of the Berlin Wall was bad. What the dude with the flower against the tanks started at Tianamen Square was bad.  So there goes the argument that today's American Communists aren't THOSE kinds of communists.
 
But there's no cooperation between Communists and  Progressive Democrats on the Left, right?  I mean, he said that, he bashed Hillary and even Obama.
 
But he also said this:

"I sat in meetings in this city where leading members of the Left said we will not have an anti-war movement, we will not embarrass our Democratic Party Candidate. And we don't need to say their names... "

So.... you sat in meetings in NYC with other Leftists in the Democratic Party who had "a" candidate that they didn't want embarrassed, saying that "we" ... (who is "we"?)  will not embarrass him..  About whom could they possibly be talking?  And they don't want to mention names ... why?   One can only assume it's because they don't want their allies on the inside exposed, even if they are a tad upset with them.