Our old friend Ellis Washington, in his latest Worldnutdaily column, plagiarizes quite flagrantly from Wikipedia and offers the absolutely laughable claim that the Communist Party USA is a major power in the country. This paragraph is a perfect example of right wing paranoia — and laziness.
Communist Party USA, or CPUSA, is a Marxist political party in the United States, established in 1919. It has an extensive complex history that is directly connected to the histories of related communist parties worldwide and the U.S. labor union movement. CPUSA was established by the Soviet Kremlin within just two years of Lenin’s Bolshevik Revolution with the mandate of destroying American capitalism, private property and Christianity while infiltrating all of its institutions – churches via social justice, Marxist “liberation theology” and embracing the socialist policies of FDR’s and LBJ’s welfare state. CPUSA has infiltrated Congress, the courts, the media, economics, education, the academy, culture, society with communist propaganda with the ultimate goal of the Soviet communists using the Democrat Socialist Party as a major vehicle to transform the United States of America (USA) into the United Socialist States of America (USSA).
Now this is pure idiocy on its face. Anyone who thinks CPUSA has any influence in any American institution is just plain delusional. I wanted to check and see how many members this pathetic little ragtag organization actually had, so I did a Wikipedia search and look at the very first sentence of the Wiki entry for CPUSA:
The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) is a Marxist political party in the United States, established in 1919. It has a long, complex history that is closely related to the histories of similar communist parties worldwide and the U.S. labor movement.
A clear case of plagiarism. Yes, he exchanged a couple of words, but the structure and wording of the sentence is unique enough that it should be absolutely obvious that he merely cut and pasted from Wiki and then change “long” to “extensive,” “closely related” to “directly connected,” and “similar” to “related.” This should not be remotely surprising, of course; after all, this is a man who has demonstrated rank intellectual dishonesty many times. When I caught him using a completely made up quote, he told me, “Remember a quote can be a paraphrase of one’s ideas and sentiments.” Well no, it can’t. You don’t put quotation marks around a paraphrase. Only a liar would claim otherwise.