WorldNetDaily- It's like Pot for Idiots

Why so harsh? Maybe because you've got to be super duper high to think that arguments like this make sense:

Hey WND, make a stupid comparison that somehow bashes liberals!

What do you know, I found one. Imagine that.

Most people don’t make a habit of visiting the website of the Communist Party USA. But if you do, in the upper corner you’ll see the familiar hammer and sickle that symbolizes the union of the industrial workers and peasantry following the Russian Revolution of 1918.

But take a second look, because the traditional communist logo has been revamped. It now sports a gear, and the elements have been arranged in the shape of – no doubt about it! – the feminist looking-glass symbol. Is it possible that gender liberation ideology is rooted the manifestos of Karl Marx and tactics of Vladimir Lenin?

Keep looking, and you’ll see the platform of U.S. Communist Party proclaims, "Among the forms of oppression women experience are attacks on their reproductive rights; lack of quality, affordable day care; inequality in child rearing and household work; sexual harassment on the job; and domestic and sexual violence."

Now let’s pay a visit to the website of the National Organization for Women and compare agendas:

Reproductive rights? Yep.

Day care and child-rearing? Check.

Sexual harassment? Yes, of course.

Domestic violence? You bet!

Do you detect a scintilla of difference between the positions advocated by the U.S. Communist Party and the NOW? Neither do I.

Scroll down the home page, and you’ll bump into this headline: "NOW Political Action Committee Proudly Endorses Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Then do a Google search that matches "Hillary Clinton" to each of the CPUSA demands. Is it a mere coincidence that the Communist Party, the National Organization for Women and Hillary Clinton are marching in lockstep with each other?

For those in need of explanation of why the aforementioned drivel is such, let's enumerate some issues here:

1. The claim that the Communist Party USA is identical with the ideological systems espoused by Bolsheviks in the 1920s, under Stalin, or by his predecessors. Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

2. The argument that anyone who supports women's reproductive rights, some government or private subsidy of day care, or opposes sexual harassment or women getting beaten to pulps is a Communist. (Because of course, all Communists and Feminists can be reduced to four easy demands.)

3. That anyone these supposed Communists support is also a Communist.

Not to violate my cherished Godwin's Law, but I'm about to.

Let's try this:

You know who liked pants? Hitler.

You know who wear pants? Republicans. They also wear footwear, including shoes and, you guessed it, boots. Sometimes they even wear, that's right, BROWN shirts. BROWN! Some even have mustaches.

And you know who (some) Republicans like? WorldNetDaily!

Now then, do you detect a scintilla of difference between Hitler and, say, Joseph Farah? Is it mere coincidence that Joseph Farah, the Republican Party, and HITLER are all marching in goose-step lockstep with each other?




And don't say it's that one of them smiles.



See, I think of everything.