Update: Obama's New Party Cover-Up and America's Marxist Future

Update 8-10-2012 7:39pm

Obama Wants to Repeat “Success” of Auto Bailout With Every Industry …(Auto Bailout Cost Taxpayers $23 Billion)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, August 9, 2012, 7:08 PM

Barack Obama wants to repeat the “success” of auto bailout with every industry.
The U.S. government will lose about $23 billion on the 2008-2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. The extra UAW subsidies in the auto bailout cost $26.5 billion—more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Detroit auto bailout was, in fact, a UAW bailout.

The Politico reported:

“I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back,” he said. “Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”

read more at http://www.thegatewaypundit.co 

Does President Obama Want to Take Over Other Industries?

Marc Piscotty/Getty Images

...President Obama is proud of the taxpayer-funded government intervention that rescued U.S. automakers GM and Chrysler back in 2009....

...regularly takes credit for the companies’ resurgent profitability and hiring as one of his top achievements...

...Obama is suggesting on the campaign trail that he wants to do it again, this time in other sectors of the economy, in order to “get the hand of government driving every industry in America.”

“From his failed stimulus bill and Solyndra-esque boondoggles to picking winners and losers at taxpayer expense in the auto bailout, President Obama has pushed aside free-market principles in favor of bigger and more intrusive government,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Thursday after Obama ended his Colorado campaign swing.

Saul and the Romney campaign point to a line Obama used this week on the stump when discussing the auto bailout and his economic vision for the future as the basis for the claim.

Read more here http://abcnews.go.com

----------------end update--------------------------------------------

The Dark Art of ‘BenSmithing’ Helped Cover Up Obama’s ‘New Party’ Membership

John Nolte
Breitbart.com
Big Journalism
6/7/2012

In 2008, National Review’s Stanley Kurtz got BenSmithed. He didn’t just get BenSmithed, though, he got BenSmithed by the BenSmithiest BenSmither in the history of BenSmithing — Ben Smith himself.

Oh, I remember it well. We were thisclose to election day, the wind was squarely at Barack Obama’s back, the media was refusing to vet the history and background of anyone in Obama’s past (besides, most every investigative reporter in the free world was in a place called Wasilla), and then along came the news that while in Chicago, as a grown man in his 30s, Barack Obama had joined something called The New Party — a radical, socialist organization whose political endorsement he had sought.

The story threatened to become a late-October surprise, the kind of story that would not only once again prove Obama’s disturbingly radical not-so-distant past, but also tie together just who this man really was (and is). It would also damage Obama’s credibility, and prove that he had been covering up his radical associations, and worse, lying about it.

The corrupt media, naturally, was hoping to run out the clock and was therefore willfully ignoring the story. Online, however, things were heating up. Right-of-center blogs were pushing the story as much as they could and like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, it threatened to spill over into the mainstream media and damage–gasp–a Democrat.

Well, this is why The Media Devil invented Ben Smith and his dark art of BenSmithing…

The article continues at Breitbart’s Big Journalism.

At Big Government, Obama Caught Lying Again: He Was a Member of ‘New Party,’ Says Kurtz:

…Kurtz writes:

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined…

read more at http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=45544

Communist Defector Speaks Out on America’s Marxist Future

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
6/12/2012

A top communist defector is warning of an unprecedented “alliance” between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party, reflected in the CPUSA’s endorsement of Barack Obama for president in 2008 and the party’s continued support for Democratic Party policies. But is this warning going to be too hot to handle for the media? And the Republicans?

Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking official ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, says in an article for PJMedia that any doubt that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces was erased in 2009, “when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar.”

Obama aide Valerie Jarrett had disclosed at a left-wing bloggers convention that “we,” apparently referring to herself and President Obama, had hired Jones for the job. However, Jones was fired when an outcry developed over his communist background, and the media quickly dropped any probes into Jones’ White House contacts.

read more at  http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=45757

The Socialist Mask of Marxism

June 4, 2012 - 12:00 am - by Ion Mihai Pacepa

History usually repeats itself, and if you have lived two lives, as I have done, you have a good chance of seeing that re-enactment with your own eyes. In 1978, I paid with two death sentences from my native Romania for helping her people rid themselves of their Marxist dictatorship, carefully disguised as socialism. Thirty years later I witnessed how the same Marxism, camouflaged as socialism, began infecting the shores of my adoptive country, the United States, which had just won a 44-year Cold War against Marxism and against its earthly incarnation, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In a 2008 column titled “Big Political Shifts Are Underway,” Joelle Fishman, chairman of the Action Commission of the Communist Party USA, strongly endorsed the Democratic Party’s candidate for the White House, appealing to all working people in the United States to back Senator Barack Obama, in order to provide “a landslide defeat of the Republican ultra-right.”

That new alliance between the Democratic Party and the Communist Party was a first in the history of the United States, the world’s headquarters of democracy and free enterprise. In November 2008, over 65 million Americans who were unable to identify the stealth virus of Marxism that was infecting the Democratic Party voted to give this party the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Although we now live in an age of technology, we still do not have an instrument that can scientifically measure to what extent the Communist endorsement of the Democratic Party influenced the results of the 2008 election. But if there had been any doubt in my mind that the Democratic and the Communist parties had secretly joined forces, that doubt was erased in 2009, when Van Jones, part of a left fringe of declared communists, became the White House’s green jobs czar. Soon after that, the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress began dutifuly following in Marx’s footsteps by redistributing our country’s wealth and putting under government control a part of its health care, banking system, and automobile industry.

Today it is considered bad manners even to mention the word Marxism, a doctrine that killed some 94 million people and transformed a third of the world into feudal societies in the middle of the 20th century. Nevertheless, there is an old saying: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Let’s try to stand the heat for a few minutes, and poke our noses into Karl Marx’s kitchen.

In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to replace capitalism with communism via a “socialist redistribution of wealth,” which “should displace capitalism and precede communism.” Marx advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” and he called them the ten planks of communism. The most important are:

• A progressive or graduated income tax;
• Abolition of rights of inheritance;
• Centralization of credit in the hands of the state;
• Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state;
• Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

If you know the Manifesto, you will think Marx himself wrote the Democratic Party’s 2012 electoral campaign, which contains all of the above planks of Marxism. If you don’t know the Manifesto, click here and you’ll get it from the horse’s mouth.

read more here http://pjmedia.com/mihaipacepa/2012/06/04/the-socialist-mask-of-marxism/?singlepage=true

"The discovery of the materialist conception of history, or rather, the consistent continuation and extension of materialism into the domain of social phenomenon, removed two chief defects of earlier historical theories. In the first place, they at
best examined only the ideological motives of the historical activity of human beings, without grasping the objective laws governing the development of the system of social relations... in the second place, the earlier theories did not cover the activities of the masses of the population, whereas historical materialism made it possible for the first time to study with the accuracy of the natural sciences the social conditions of the life of the masses and the changes in these conditions." 

Russian Marxist theoretician and revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, 1913.

REMEMBER!!!