Che Guevara’s Real Legacy

DECIPHERING THE TRUTH ABOUT BARACK OBAMA’S CUBAN HERO … Who is Che Guevara? And why is a picture of U.S. president Barack Obama standing under his iconic image in on the island nation of Cuba causing such controversy? Good questions … First … Guevara.  To those on the right, he’s…


Who is Che Guevara? And why is a picture of U.S. president Barack Obama standing under his iconic image in on the island nation of Cuba causing such controversy?

Good questions …

First … Guevara.  To those on the right, he’s a murderous Marxist whose true legacy has been glossed over to conceal a wide range of atrocities.  To those on the left, he’s an anti-imperialist hero, a martyr murdered by CIA-backed forces in Bolivia following his starring role in the Cuban revolution.

In fact the famous (infamous?) photo of Guevara – popularized by bands like Rage Against The Machine – has become a symbol of modern counterculture.  Especially among “progressives.”

This is precisely the anti-establishment legacy Obama is seeking to capitalize upon (well, co-opt).  But there is another side to Guevara.  Several sides, actually.  It turns out he was an unapologetic racist (particularly toward blacks).  A homophobe.  A sadist.  And once he was in power, he was an oppressor and silencer of the very “progressives” now donning his shirts and raising their fists on college campuses across America.

“Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates,” Guevara said in 1961, two years after helping Fidel Castro overthrow the regime of Fulgencio Batista.

Sound like a “counterculture” icon to you?

Hardly …

Guevara explicitly embraced the sort of bloodthirsty radicalism we currently see manifested in the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  And while this website has made abundantly clear its views regarding the counterproductive role American interventionism has played in the rise of ISIS, there is no sugarcoating the intrinsically evil modus operandi of the current caliphate.

Guevara?  He might as well have written their playbook …

“Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent … hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine,” Guevara said in 1966, one year before his death.  “We reject any peaceful approach.  Violence is inevitable.  To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow!  The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves.  Thus we’ll destroy him!  These hyenas are fit only for extermination.  We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”

Curious how Obama would chose to embrace this legacy on the same day dozens were killed by the latest militant Islamic attack, isn’t it?

We spoke this week to U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan about Obama’s visit to Cuba and embrace of Guevara’s legacy.  Duncan represents South Carolina’s third congressional district.  More relevant to the matters under discussion here, he is the chairman of the U.S. House foreign affairs subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.

His thoughts?

“The photo of President Obama standing in front of mass murderer Che Guevara is disturbing at best,” Duncan said. “Che was a communist revolutionary who, as warden over Castro’s political prison in the aftermath of the Cuban revolution, was responsible for setting up the firing squad which killed hundreds of political prisoners, many of which never had a trial.”

Lack of due process … another chink in the iconic counterculture armor, right?

It’s also worth noting current Cuban president Raúl Castro was part of those firing squads, too …

(Click to enlarge)


Not only that, Guevara reportedly targeted blacks disproportionately in his mass killings – which would have been consistent with his racist world view.

“We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing,” Guevara once wrote. “The Negro is indolent and lazy, and spends his money on frivolities, whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”

Again … does that sound like a counterculture hero to you?

Guevara modified his views on blacks later in his life – à la George Wallace or Strom Thurmond – but don’t expect to see Obama posing in front of iconic images of those two segregationist southern politicians.

“This mass murderer has become an icon for the extreme left around the world,” Duncan said.  “The disconnect between the real Che Guevara and the one portrayed by the left is exacerbated by President Obama standing before the iconic image for the whole world to see … almost like it was planned by Barack Obama to send a message about himself, his ideals or how he sees himself.”

“Regardless of the varying accounts of Che, he shouldn’t be glorified,” Duncan said.  “Regardless of his changing opinions of blacks, he shouldn’t be glorified.  He was an assassin for Castro and an instigator of communist revolution.”

Contrasting Duncan’s views?  Those of U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford – who stood alongside Obama in Cuba.  In fact Sanford used his longstanding support for the Castro regime recently as an excuse not to join a group of lawmakers eager to reestablish congressional authority over the budget process in Washington, D.C.

Ridiculous right?  Indeed … especially since the provisions Sanford reportedly objected to were narrowly drawn so as to prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing Cuba’s military or intelligence agencies and to keep the Castro regime from profiting off of properties it seized.

What possible objection could Sanford have to such caveats?


This website has generally favored Sanford’s anti-isolationist views toward Cuba – and we have expressly rebuked the taxpayer subsidization of efforts to meddle in Cuba’s internal affairs.

But this isn’t about normalizing relations.  Or reestablishment mutually beneficial economic relations (to the extent government can be trusted to do that).  No.  This is an attempt to sanitize history at the expense of the truth – not to mention a shameless effort to gloss over the Obama administration’s utter failure to accomplish anything of significance in this process either for his own people or for the Cubans.

As Duncan said …

I don’t necessarily disagree with more normalized relations with Cuba. I just disagree with how this deal was negotiated – or the very lack of negotiated points by the Obama Administration – as it pertains to the Cuban people. What do the Cuban people, who are continually oppressed by the Castro regime, get from this “deal?”

Free speech? No.

Free press? No.

Freedom to assemble? No.

Freedom of religion? No.

More involvement in self-governance? No

Retention of more of their wages? No

Over 2,000 Cubans have been imprisoned just since January, with many imprisoned just days prior to President Obama’s historic visit, including a Baptist pastor and his family who had spoken to my Western Hemisphere Subcommittee just this year about Cuban oppression.

When human rights issues came up during the press conference with Castro and Obama, Raúl Castro said that it was improper to ask him about political prisoners and only touted Cuban education and healthcare as “human rights” positives.

In other words, this is much bigger than the reckless embrace of a murderous socialist thug  … it’s about a nation (our nation) accommodating the perpetuation of his views on the subjugation of individual freedom and free markets.

“As libertarians and conservatives we should want to have limited government – to allow market forces to work in effecting change,” Duncan said.  “But we should recognize the plight of the Cuban people and work tirelessly to stand up for THEIR liberties.  And when governments do get involved, as the Obama administration has done, we should strive to include concessions for the oppressed in order to help them obtain some of the liberties which we take for granted.”

Indeed …

To be clear: It is not America’s place to decide what transpires in Cuba.  That is for the Cubans to decide.  But Obama’s “intervention” on this island – in defense of Guevara and in support of his enduring legacy of repression –  is indeed disappointing on multiple levels.

Not only that – it’s demonstrably hypocritical, self-loathing and indicative of the further erosion of our nation’s moral authority to lead.


Related posts


Richland Mall Fire: Did Negligence Lead To Conflagration?

Will Folks

Guest Column: Joe Biden’s Plan To Devastate Local Economies


Rabid Raccoons Reported In South Carolina Counties

Erin Parrott


Tazmaniac March 23, 2016 at 1:31 pm

Che Guevara may be multi-faceted, most people are, but the sum total of him was a not so great. His negatives far outweighed his positives. The humorous but sick thing is his writings expressed his utter disgust for “entertainers, actors and musicians” yet the fools of Hollywood ignorantly strut around in his T-shirts all while fainting at the sight of a swastika. Like in all revolutions, the first order of business is to kill the useful idiots so his time was short once he wasn’t needed.

Che the Butcher March 23, 2016 at 3:20 pm

A co-worker who fled Cuba, thought it was a hoot when the Black Congressional Caucus went on that Cuban junket a number of years ago to later come home singing Castro’s praises. In his experience, he said there was no bigger RACIST than Castro.

Pogo March 23, 2016 at 3:31 pm

I see he hasn’t met me!

Real World Problems March 23, 2016 at 2:55 pm

How quaint, Mao gets to eat with the president of the US after his policies starved millions to death.

At least Castro has an excuse of years and years of heavy US sanctions kicking his country in the balls non stop.

Obama revealed March 23, 2016 at 3:16 pm

But did either Mandela or Nixon sit mute as Fidel and Mao degraded their countries and countrymen? Did Mandela or Nixon even publicly agree with Fidel and Mao’s assessments of their countries?

Dipshit Alert March 23, 2016 at 3:22 pm

Nixon got impeached. Obama didn’t.

Mandela had a sympathetic leaning towards communism. Obama doesn’t.

logic March 23, 2016 at 3:34 pm

Dipshit Alert- Nixon didn’t get impeached because he dined with Mao. And you are naive to think Obama doesn’t have “leanings” as you say. His bosom beau in his formative years was Frank Marshall Davis.

Dipshit Alert March 23, 2016 at 3:42 pm

Of course Nixon didn’t get impeached for dining with Mao, having open relations with foreign leaders you don’t agree with isn’t an impeachable offense. Nixon still did something impeachable though, unlike Obama.

Mandela had open relations with the South Africa Communist Party, where has Obama had such open relationships with outright commies? Only in your head.


Dipshit spotted, posing as logic but his logic sucks.

logic March 23, 2016 at 8:27 pm

You are drawing all sorts of false equivalencies. Because Obama has not been impeached like Nixon or embraced Castro like Mandela, his actions are not to be scrutinized?
It is naive to think having Frank Marshall Davis as a mentor in one’s formative years would have no impact on your outlook of the world. Perhaps that early exposure led to an attraction for progressive radicals. Perhaps not. But we can certainly note links along the way and wonder.

False Equivalency March 24, 2016 at 10:11 am

Hey dipshit, you’re the one that originally responded to Mandela and Nixon with Obama.

Rocky Verdad March 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm


CorruptionInColumbia March 23, 2016 at 9:39 pm

Strong rumor has it that FMD may have been 0’s “real”dad.

EdWatts March 24, 2016 at 11:24 pm

Nixon did NOT get impeached.

Speight March 23, 2016 at 5:56 pm

Yes, they DID sit mute. As the scion of Africans and African-Americans, Mandela’s embracing of Castro is far more egregious than Obama in front of a Che Guevara pic.

Obama further revealed? March 23, 2016 at 8:17 pm

Then some people need a schooling about Mandela and Castro and the egregiousness. There were knowlegeable people at the time of Nixon and Mandela who had similar complaints about a world leader meeting with a Mass murdering despot. The criticisms extend to Obama as well. Time will tell if the dog and pony show reaps benefits other than the Special Interests who will make money, and the subsidies the US taxpayers will likely be sending Cuba’s way.

Speight March 23, 2016 at 8:21 pm

Fair enough.

Obama & Che sitting in a tree March 23, 2016 at 2:49 pm Reply
Pogo March 23, 2016 at 2:56 pm

He’s aight, but not left enough for me.

Recent Quotes from Che March 23, 2016 at 2:51 pm





He’s fucking dead and his image has been turned into a profitable fashion icon per the capitalist system he so despised, who gives a shit?

Nölff March 23, 2016 at 3:31 pm

……………………. *blink* ………………… *drool*
…………………… – Terri Schiavo 2004

GAS March 23, 2016 at 6:21 pm

His many victims and their families who are low information types who wear the t-shirt as a statement attesting… what??? Not good.

avoiding the flak March 23, 2016 at 3:25 pm

The Prez is in Argentina now? Oy. Now we see Sanford’s motivation for going on the Cuba Trip. Hitch’in a Free Ride……on the taxpayers dime. Is the mistress on the trip to Cuba or is he meeting her there? Funny, he has nary a word about this trip or the goings on, on his Facebook page………………

Mark March 23, 2016 at 3:46 pm

I will be paying Obama back by taking him on a hike of the Appalachian trail.

CorruptionInColumbia March 23, 2016 at 4:04 pm

… or a trip to the former James Metts boat landing…


Rocky Verdad March 23, 2016 at 4:08 pm

He’ll be paying you back by showing Maria the black mamba.

Rocky Verdad March 23, 2016 at 4:08 pm

Nice catch. “He Maria, if I get you a ride home on AF1 – do I get a b— job?”

tomstickler March 23, 2016 at 8:54 pm

When I spoke with him about two hours ago at Vickery’s, he recommended visiting before corporate America takes over. No mention of Belin, but then that wasn’t what we were talking about, which was the removal of the Atlantic from the 5-year offshore drilling program.

Trumpism March 23, 2016 at 11:02 pm

You lie more than Boz ya fucking drunk.

Rocky Verdad March 23, 2016 at 4:07 pm

Sort of stretch there on Obama praising Che – don’t ya’ think?

idcydm March 23, 2016 at 9:09 pm

No. If the truth be known Obama wishes he could be on as many tee shirts.

Rocky Verdad March 23, 2016 at 4:09 pm

Don’t forget, Che was the center of a really cool motorcycle movie.

Pilf March 23, 2016 at 4:22 pm

Sic has really gone off the cliff with this post. But then again he may not have been old enough to recall when Nixon and Reagan & their robots were pictured with our old “enemies”! But what can we expect from someone who is an honor grad of the Breitbart School of Propaganda and doesn’t like our black Pres.

idcydm March 23, 2016 at 9:08 pm

A President doesn’t have to be black not to like him.

jimlewisowb March 23, 2016 at 4:50 pm

“….legacy Obama is seeking….”

His Legacy can be summed up in three letters, POS

Buck Farack, Fuckin’ Cockroach

erneba March 23, 2016 at 6:38 pm

An appropriate hero for Obama.
In politics, optics are important, I bet Obama was feeling great about that opportunity.

idcydm March 23, 2016 at 9:10 pm

Wonder if Teddy is turning over in his grave?

Mike at the Beach March 23, 2016 at 9:37 pm

I get tickled whenever the Che thing gets a little debunking out in the mainstream (although this may be the first time FITS has been referred to as “mainstream”). For many years I’ve moonlighted as a college prof, and I love to heckle kids wearing those stupid shirts. It’s good not to be a career professor worried about promotions or tenure.

Here’s a great shirt to slip on in class (you should see the faces of the 15% of the class who “get” it)…

Trumpism March 23, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Love your posts.

Pumpism March 24, 2016 at 10:48 am

Make sure you tongue his asshole while rubbing his balls.

Hortance March 24, 2016 at 9:40 pm

Don’t worry. It’ll warm up soon and you’ll be able to see ALL your old friends at the State Park public toilets…..Troll dirty-talk can’t be anywhere near as satisfying as that.

mamaluvdatsweetcanesuga March 23, 2016 at 10:28 pm

che was also a card carrying member of the ku klux klan . so then there’s that

Selective Conservative Outrage March 24, 2016 at 10:10 am Reply

Leave a Comment