Human Events Blog

Allen West vs. Soledad O’Brien and the Communists


The sequel to a good action movie always has to be bigger than the original, so Rep. Allen West (R-FL) found himself squaring off against both the Communists and CNN host Soledad O’Brien to discuss the finer points of progressivism, liberalism, and communism (but not, alas, Critical Race Theory.)

O’Brien ably demonstrates the absolute, willful ignorance that has made her show such a success.  After West very clearly explains that she’s edited the clip of his Florida town hall chat about communism to skip the part where he explains that he’s referring to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and then spends a minute discoursing on the relationship between communism and progressive politics, O’Brien starts giggling and asking him to name the card-carrying members of the Communist Party in Congress. 

Way to not listen to a word your guest is saying, Soledad!  Does CNN have any editorial oversight at all? 

Watching West speak slowly and carefully to the stubborn CNN host, in the manner of a patient grandfather telling a little kid to get her fingers out of an electric socket, is priceless.  It’s awesome that she thinks reading names off a memo is some kind of clever retort.

The interesting part of Rep. West’s foray into ideological taxidermy is that neither O’Brien, nor anyone else who’s been giving him grief, can actually discuss the point in an intelligent manner.  The CNN host doesn’t know anything about progressivism.  She just thinks it’s pure, unalloyed goodness, and anyone who mentions communists has skated completely outside the acceptable boundaries of discourse. 

Actually explaining how the policies of the Congressional Progressive Caucus differ substantially from the Communist Party USA would have been a more intelligent approach.  I’ll give CNN a hand, in case they want to send someone with more intellectual heft to challenge Allen West.  Both the CPC and the CPUSA are public organizations with easily accessible web sites, where they have listed their policy agendas.  The CPC’s “Progressive Promise” is here

The Communist Party USA also has a website, where… well, now wait a second, I just clicked on the darn thing, and it’s already getting confusing.  Right on the front page, they proclaim: “A better and peaceful world is possible – a world where people and nature come before profits.  That’s socialism.  That’s our vision.  We are the Communist Party USA.” 

But I thought “socialism” was totally different than communism, and they’re both completely different animals than “progressivism.”  Oh, well, I’m sure Soledad O’Brien could clear that up by reading some names off a piece of paper.  Anyway, their policy agenda is here, and… gosh darn it, they did it again!  Their agenda is called “The Road to Socialism USA,” and it talks about “forces for progress!” 

Here’s a couple of quotes.  I highlighted the “progressive” parts, in case someone decides to read this into Soledad O’Brien’s earpiece:

We as a country face serious choices: militarism and imperialism or peace, increased wealth for the few or justice and equality for the many, increased power in the hands of the super-rich or expansion of democracy for the vast majority, ultra-right domination of all branches of government which deals with problems by increasing exploitation and oppression or progressive electoral coalitions that seek real solutions in the interests of all working people.

[…] Every movement for change and progress is challenged by the power of the corporations. Workers face corporate power in every contract negotiation. African Americans, Mexican Americans and all other Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and women all face corporate power when they seek real equality on the job and in their communities. Youth face corporate power when they seek free quality education for all. Environmental organizations face corporate power when they try to stop pollution, stop the dumping of industrial waste, or stop the ravaging of the remaining wilderness areas for profit.

[…] Among the results of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries returning to capitalism were major setbacks for the progressive forces on a world scale and a shift in favor of imperialism headed by the U.S. With the demise of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos face severe new problems. A number of former colonial countries that had chosen non-capitalist paths of development were forced back toward capitalist development.

But remember, the “progressives” are totally different than these guys, even though I think the commies use “progressive” in their manifesto even more often than the Congressional Progressive Caucus does.  If I hadn’t already told you where I got the above quotes from, which Party would you think they might have come from?  A lot of it sounds kind of… familiar, doesn’t it? 

Say, you don’t suppose Rep. West might have actually read the platforms of the CPC and CPUSA before he declared them BFFs, do you?  Unlike, say, the average network news talking head?

Hat tip to The Right Scoop and Newsbusters for the video.  Be sure to watch it to the end, when O’Brien thinks she can score some kind of point against West by quoting the head of the actual Communist Party USA.  She is hilariously mistaken.


Sign Up
  • franknowzad

    A Socialist believes that the means of production should be owned, and controlled by the state. EG Obamacare or Solyndra
    A communist is a socialist who can send people to Deathcamps.
    A statist is a socialist trying to hide his true identity.

  • ajain31

    Note: The author, John F. Ince of this article is a former classmate of Mitt Romney at Harvard Business School and former reporter at Fortune Magazine. He is the author of Mitt Romney: King of Bain and the Man Who Wants To Be President.

    There are at least 12 reasons why Mitt Romney would not make a good president. Here’s John F. Ince’s list. What’s yours?
    1 • Romney neither understands nor represents most Americans. The man lacks empathy for those who have not had all the benefits he has had in life. His presidency would be deeply polarizing. One can easily image his election as president would generate new waves of social unrest and violence. He clearly represents the 1% and the 99% will not tolerate policies that exacerbate the growing divisions between rich and poor.
    2 • Romney’s job creation claims are inflated and unrealistic. Mitt Romney’s professional career was based on a very specific task: buying and selling companies for profit. He wants people to think that this qualifies him to be a job creator. With the exception of his investment in Staples and a few other early venture capital deals, his jobs creation claims are mostly chimera. He takes credit for creating jobs, when he was only an investor in those companies, not an executive. In practice, he predominantly used his power as an investor to eliminate jobs and shift other jobs overseas, all in the interest of making profits.
    3 • Romney does not have a sound fiscal plan. Extrapolating from the projections Romney has offered for increased defense spending and tax cuts, his policies would blow a hole in the Federal budget, further eroding investors faith in the government’s ability to get its fiscal house in order.
    4 • Romney has little respect for the natural environment, nor a commitment to protect and preserve it for future generations. He blindly subscribes to Republican views that climate change is not scientifically proven. He gives no indication of any desire to develop alternative sources of energy that can mitigate the man made sources of pollutants. Instead he supports the rollback of environmental regulations all but giving companies a green light to pollute the environment and waste vital natural resources.
    5 • Romney has lived a cloistered and privileged life and today has a very narrow view of the world. From the Cranbrook School to Brigham Young University, to Harvard Business School to Bain Capital, it’s difficult to imagine anyone who has been less exposed to the lives and conditions under which most Americans live. The covenants of his Mormon faith are extremely rigid, restrictive and unrealistic. His devotion to his faith is admirable, but his inability to step beyond the confines of that religion suggest that he would have difficulty reconciling who he is with who others are in an increasingly diverse world.
    6 • Romney’s worldview is rooted in intolerance. He has a very narrow view of the world. America today is a diverse nation with many different racial groups, faiths, all in need of respect. The bully incident at his prep school and his aggressive corporate behavior buying and selling companies at Bain Capital suggest someone who has little desire help those who are different, less fortunate and in weaker position than him.
    7 • Romney does not fully understand the transformative power of technological change. Mitt has no professional technical training. Most of the companies he invested in at Bain were low tech. His expertise is finance: specifically buying and selling companies. All this suggests someone who will pay lip service to the tech sector, but won’t fully grasp the potential for transforming the economy and culture through advancing technology.
    8 • Romney is temperamentally unfit for the presidency. He is peevish, controlling and less than transparent. He has a rigid worldview that revolves around what is best for himself and a small circle of those who support him.
    9 • Romney lacks direct foreign policy experience. His four years as Governor of Massachusetts do not give him sufficient knowledge or expertise to effectively deal with an increasingly complex world. On the job learners nearly always make blunders, sometimes blunders so large that they create huge problems for the U. S..
    10 • Romney lacks integrity and honesty. His fudging of issues is a sign that he feels he can head fake his way though difficult debates. His statement that he does not remember the prep school bully incident is implausible. His evasiveness over release of tax forms and embellishment of his accomplishments are all red flags. His decisions as an executive at Bain Capital were not rooted in ethical behavior. The man is simply not forthright enough to earn the trust of the American people.
    11 • Romney has no commitment to women or equal rights. There is little in his public statements or record to suggest he feels any responsibility for advancing the interests of women and minorities.
    12 • Romney lacks sufficient charisma and personality to be a strong leader. The country needs someone to lead forcefully and inspire citizens to tackle problems that threaten the diminishment of American stature on the world stage. Romney’s robotic and reptilian personality fails to connect, leaving people feeling that Romney is in the game only for himself, rather than in it for the good of all.
    Note: The author, John F. Ince of this article is a former classmate of Mitt Romney at Harvard Business School and former reporter at Fortune Magazine. He is the author of Mitt Romney: King of Bain and the Man Who Wants To Be President.