Allow me to begin by apologizing for having been absent from these pages for a while. My up-coming book Disinformation, which I have co-written with Professor Ronald Rychlak, became the subject of a documentary movie to be released in June, and that has monopolized my time.

On March 6, 2013, we celebrate 60 years since the death of Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, whose nom de guerre was Stalin — meaning man of steel. I deliberately use the word “celebrate,” because Stalin’s death allowed the first ray of light to penetrate into one of the darkest and bloodiest disinformation operations in history: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics itself. Soon after Stalin died, the curtain shielding his “workers’ paradise” from public view was ripped apart, and the rest of the world got its first glimpse of the gulag empire that the Soviet Union really was. According to recent revelations, some 94 million people were killed during the lifetime of the Soviet empire[i] so as to uphold the heretical system of socialism, a creed that deprived mankind of the very motivational forces needed to keep mankind going: private property, competition, and individual incentive.

In theory, socialism is an idyllic dream. In reality, it is a phony nightmare, modeled after Karl Marx’s infamous dictum “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen” (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need), a social theory that has destroyed the economy of every country where it has been applied. To put it into plain English, the socialist redistribution of wealth is theft, and stealing became a national policy on the day the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was born. Immediately after the revolution of November 1917, Russia’s new socialist government confiscated the imperial family’s wealth, seized the land owned by the rich Russians, nationalized Russian industry and banking, and killed most of the property owners. In 1929, the Kremlin turned its covetous eyes toward the poorest elements in the country; by forcing the peasants into collective farms, it stole away their land, along with their animals and agricultural tools. Within a few years, virtually the entire Soviet economy was running on stolen property.

In the mid 1930s, the Communist Party itself became a target for theft. Following a brief period of collective leadership exercised by the Central Committee and later by its elite, the Politburo, Stalin personally stole all the top-level positions in the country and pinned them onto his own chest like war decorations, thereby establishing a dismal new feudalism in the middle of the 20th century. That is exactly what occurred later throughout Eastern Europe, when the Soviet socialists took over after World War II. By the time I said goodbye forever to Socialist Romania in 1978, the list of official positions and titles accumulated by Ceausescu and his wife could have easily filled a whole page.

August 10, 2012, marked the 1,200th day that the Obama administration has been running the United States of America without any approved budget and without any coherent foreign policy. It is no wonder that last September, when terrorists assassinated our ambassador to Libya and three of his subordinates, the White House scurried for cover behind Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. Both initially went out of their way to persuade the country that we were not dealing with terrorism, and when that didn’t fly, blamed the intelligence community. The farce was a deliberate diversion designed to throw dust in the country’s eyes, and it should be treated as such.

The fundamental task facing the U.S. today is not to find out who knew what about that despicable act of terrorism, but to establish why it was not prevented.

Preventing terrorism has been a primary national and international task since 1937, when the League of Nations adopted the first resolution on terrorism — the “Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism.” Resolution No. 60/288 defining the U.N. Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted on September 8, 2006, states:

The international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism.

The 9/11 Commission Report spent most of its 567 pages on measures for preventing new terrorist attacks on American soil, which includes U.S. embassies. “Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is our founding principle and our highest priority,” states the logo of the Department of Homeland Security, which was created after 9/11. In 2008, the Heritage Foundation reported that 40 terrorist attacks had been foiled since 9/11. (They are detailed here.)

In his January 15, 2009, farewell address, President George W. Bush said:

[After 9/11] most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11. But I never did.

…

Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.

…

[T]here can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil night and day to keep us safe — law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security, diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

On September 28, 2012, The Nation, America’s “flagship of the left,” exploded in an un-American burst of antisemitism. Its cover article stated:

Looking like a slightly deranged grandfather obsessed with something only he can see. … Benjamin Netanyahu fussed and scribbled over a cartoon bomb at the podium of the United Nations yesterday. With any luck, the bombastic, extremist, too-far-right-for-even-Likud Israeli prime minister has done himself in. … No one, or almost no one, believes that Iran is a vast nuclear threat and that the United States (or Israel) has to bomb it in weeks or months or, as Netanyahu suggests, at the latest next summer. Not the Obama administration, which is treating Netanyahu as if it wishes it could haul out a straitjacket and a syringe. … But few people, other than The Nation, are willing to say that Netanyahu might actually be crazy.

(You can read the entire antisemitic rant here.)

The Nation‘s antisemitic hysteria reminds me of the new antisemitic madness that exploded in Moscow in 1998, soon after one of my former colleagues in the KGB community, General Yevgeny Primakov, became Russia’s prime minister. Russian television showed General Albert Makashov, a member of the Duma, screaming: “I will round up all the Yids [pejorative for Jews] and send them to the next world.” Makashov alleged that the Jews were ruining the motherland, and he called for the “extermination of all Jews in Russia.” [i] On November 4, 1998, the Duma endorsed Makashov by voting (121 to 107) to defeat a parliamentary motion censuring his hate-filled statement. At the November 7, 1998, demonstration marking the 81^st anniversary of the October Revolution, crowds of former KGB officers showed their support for the general, chanting “hands off Makashov!” and waving signs with anti-Semitic slogans.[ii]

So, why do I put America’s oldest continuously published weekly, The Nation, on the same page with Moscow and Makashov? Because The Nation has been Moscow’s mouthpiece for almost nine decades. In 1924, when Lenin died, The Nation raved:

Lenin is the hero of a legend, a man who had torn the burning heart out of his breast in order to light up for mankind the path which shall lead it out of the shameful chaos of the present, out of the rotting bog of stupid current politics. … His hero-character has almost no outward adornment.[iii]

Let’s not forget that in fact The Nation‘s “hero of a legend” fathered the world’s bloodiest tyranny in history, which eventually killed some 90 million of its own people, unleashed a 44-year Cold War, and ignited the current international terrorism. Let’s also not forget that the successor to The Nation‘s “hero of a legend” made a pact with Hitler, who at that very moment was planning to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth. On August 23, 1939, when the Soviet foreign minister and his German counterpart met in the Kremlin to sign the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact, Stalin solemnly declared: “The Soviet government takes this new pact very seriously. I can guarantee, on my word of honor, that the Soviet Union will not betray its partner.”[iv] Now a more recent Russian successor to The Nation‘s “hero of a legend” is secretly arming a contemporary Hitler dedicated to eradicating the state of Israel with nuclear weapons. “Israel will soon be destroyed,” Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad screamed on August 17, 2012. He described the Jewish state as a “cancerous tumor” that would soon be excised.[v]

The State Department contends that the assassination of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three American officials who defended him was an unplanned, spur-of-the-moment reaction to a low-budget film called Innocence of Muslims. That is nothing more than a fairytale lullaby designed to put American outrage to sleep. The only reaction to this fantasy seems to have been among the Muslim terrorist leaders, who understand it as a go-ahead to attack our embassies all around the world with impunity. Our embassy in Pakistan is now under siege. Thousands of other “angry” Muslims are now screaming “Death to America” and burning American flags in front of our embassies in Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Yemen, Germany, and Great Britain, to mention just a few.

During the years I spent at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community I unfortunately came to know many tyrants quite well, and I learned for a fact that they despise appeasers. In April 1978, President Jimmy Carter hailed Romania’s communist tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader.” I was standing next to the two of them at the White House, and I could hardly believe my ears. A few hours later, I was in the car with Ceausescu, driving away from the White House. He took a bottle of alcohol and splashed it all over his face, in reaction to having been affectionately kissed by the U.S. president in the Oval Office. “Peanut-head,” Ceausescu muttered in disgust.

Three months later, President Carter signed my request for political asylum, and I told him who Ceausescu really was, and how he had reacted to that kiss at the White House. On the memorable day of July 19, 1979, however, I watched the TV news with disbelief, as President Carter did it again. He affectionately kissed Leonid Brezhnev on both cheeks during their first encounter in Vienna.

Brezhnev also despised appeasers, as I also knew for a fact. Five months after the infamous Carter-Brezhnev kiss, a KGB terrorist squad assassinated Hafizullah Amin, the American-educated prime minister of Afghanistan, and replaced him with a Soviet puppet. Then the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and President Carter feebly protested by boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow. This new sign of American weakness gave rise to the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden’s terrorism.

In the 1990s, the U.S. government virtually ignored bin Laden’s first assault on the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. During that same period, we entrusted our national security and foreign policy tasks into the hands of the United Nations — which responded on May 3, 2001, by ejecting the United States from its Human Rights Commission.

We had barely set foot in the 21st century, when bin Laden’s terrorists unleashed a relentless war against our country, with the disastrous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Soon after that, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), expelled the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (AEIA), and let loose a venomous anti-American campaign. “Let’s exterminate our sworn enemy U.S. imperialists!” reads a slogan inside North Korean jet cockpits, sailors’ cabins, and army guard posts.

When Ronald Reagan became president, the U.S. was being treated with contempt by most petty tyrants around the world. The Soviet Union was on the march in Angola, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia, Syria, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Peru, and, of course, Afghanistan. President Reagan reversed all these trends by calling the tyrants and their tyrannies by their real names, and treating them as such. Remember his “Evil Empire”? The Soviet press agency TASS said those words demonstrated that Reagan was a “bellicose, lunatic anti-Communist.” But it was precisely that “lunatic anti-Communist” who won the 44-year Cold War and returned America to greatness.

Unfortunately, in 1993 we got another wishy-washy president, who reinstated Carter’s policy of appeasing Communist tyrants. On April 22, 2000, during a Holy Week, between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, President Bill Clinton’s marshals forcibly seized and returned to Communist Cuba a six-year-old boy who had miraculously escaped alive from a boat that had sunk with his mother, who had been trying to free her only child from Castro’s tyranny.

This year’s Republican National Convention will be as historically significant as the one that nominated Abraham Lincoln for the White House. The 1860 Republican Convention was a prelude to our country’s rejection of slavery. The 2012 Republican Convention will liberate our country from the Obama administration’s creeping Marxism. We are glad that our Roger L. Simon is there, in Tampa, to keep us updated, minute by minute.

By choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney showed the country, and the world, that he was unalterably determined to end the populist road show called “Change,” choreographed by the Democratic Party in order to divert attention away from its utter failure to alleviate the country’s devastating economic crisis.

“Change” is rooted in a lie proliferated by our own American leftist media. According to this lie, the United States, the leader of the free world, is in fact a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm” unable to provide medical care for the poor, rebuild her “crumbling schools,” or replace the “shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race.”

“Change” became the Democratic Party’s motto, but it was just a comedy show geared to distracting public attention away from the leader’s economic incompetence. The ancient Roman satirical poet Juvenal used the term panem et circenses to describe such shows. To tame the impoverished Roman populace, the Caesars orchestrated “bread and circuses” distractions, offering a variety of free pleasures: good food, public baths, handsome gladiators, exotic animals, chariot races, sports competitions, theatrical presentations, and the slogan Ave Caesar, Imperator!

The Obama administration’s “Change” has transformed the U.S. into a country of “bread and circuses.” One hundred million people are now on various kinds of welfare, 49% of the population is exempted from paying taxes, and 44.7 million people receive food stamps, while widely televised mass gatherings and nationally circulated newspaper articles worship our first American Caesar.

These “bread and circuses” extravaganzas did not work for the Roman Empire, which eventually collapsed under the weight of its enormous civil bureaucracy and public debt. They are not working for the United States either. At the time of this writing, our national debt is $15,962,835,542,312, the highest in U.S. history, and it is growing by the minute. The country’s total debt per citizen is $52,900, and it is projected to be $67,500 in five years. The unemployment rate, which historically averaged 5.8%, has been over 8% for the last three years. The price of gasoline is now 300% higher than it was before the “bread and circuses” reign.

To solve this growing economic crisis, the Democratic Party offers nothing better than more “bread and circuses.” According to an August 5, 2012, article published in the New York Times, a group of 21 people in San Jose, California, were treated for burns after walking barefoot over hot coals as part of an event called “Unleash the Power Within,” starring the motivational speaker Tony Robbins. “If you are anything like me,” wrote Oliver Burkeman, the author of the article, “a cynical retort might suggest itself: What, exactly, did they expect would happen?” The leaders of the Democratic Party may consider themselves much better motivational speakers, but the question remains the same: What, exactly, do they expect will happen?

The November elections will give the American people a chance to stop walking barefoot over hot coals. The United States is the biggest business on earth, and “We the People” will elect the Romney-Ryan team, who will run our country as a business, not as a “bread and circuses” show.

President Barack Obama’s is currently maligning extremely successful businesman Mitt Romney as a man heartlessly engaged in the exploitation of American labor and the outsourcing of their jobs to foreign countries. I am reminded of Nikita Khrushchev’s portrayal of his competitor, President John F. Kennedy, as a “capitalist pig.”

With my own ears I more than once heard Khrushchev cussing out that “millionaire’s kid” and threatening to wipe that “pig” off the face of the earth. As a matter of fact, all the leaders of the former Soviet Union regularly referred to capitalists as “pigs.” Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet Union’s “capitalist pigs” had been killed off. When Khrushchev came along, there were no more “capitalist pigs” left there, so he turned his hatred towards America.

Heaven forbid I should be understood as comparing President Obama to any of the Soviet monsters. I strongly believe that the first black American president should have a place of honor in our country’s history, but I note a few coincidences that do serve as food for thought.

Khrushchev matured politically in a period when Lenin and Stalin were pulling off what historians term the greatest peacetime mass terror in European history, in which millions of “capitalist pigs” living in the Soviet Union lost their lives. That experience left Khrushchev with a deep-seated hatred for capitalists: “It is in my blood — my serf’s blood!” I repeatedly heard him brag, for he was proud of it. Now, let’s consider what may have been going through the mind of President Obama during the twenty years he was receiving the message of liberation theology, a distorted view of the world specifically created and disseminated by Khrushchev’s KGB (I describe this more fully in my upcoming book Disinformation).

The purpose of liberation theology was to spread hatred for American capitalism throughout North America. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who presided over Obama’s wedding and baptized his two children, is now most famous for “God damn America.” In such an environment, it is no wonder Senator Obama of 2008 described the undisputed leader of the free world as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm” unable to provide medical care for the poor, rebuild her “crumbling schools,” or replace the “shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race.” Of course the senator pledged to change it by redistributing its wealth.

In my other life in Communist Romania, I managed a large intelligence organization that, among other tasks, was charged with keeping alive a nationalized health care system which in the end bankrupted the country and generated popular contempt. That system, very similar to the Affordable Health Care for America Act, was a bureaucratic nightmare. And it still is a nightmare in the former Soviet empire.

A European Union report on post-Communist Romania’s “Health Care System in Transition” stated that this system “devastated the country,” whose infant mortality rate (20.2 per 1,000) was among the highest in Europe and whose death rate was 70% higher that the EU average.[i] The world’s leading general medical journal, The Lancet, reported that even twenty years after the Soviet Union collapsed, “life expectancy at birth is 66 years for Russians; 16 years less than for people in Japan and 14 less than the European Union average.”[ii]

My past experience gave me reason to believe that the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the Affordable Health Care for America Act alive constituted a much needed wake-up call for our conservative movement. Since 2009, when the Democratic Party began surreptitiously nationalizing the U.S. health care system, our conservative movement has done nothing but weep and wail and wait for God in heaven and the Supreme Court on earth to save America from such a calamity.

It is time for us to paddle our own canoe. The first three words in the U.S. Constitution are “We the people.” So let us have “we the people” decide what kind of health care we want, because our tax money is paying for it. In order to make responsible decisions in the November election, “we the people” need to know the truth: the United States is today rated No. 1 in the world when it comes to medical responsiveness and quality of health care, and there is no reason to rush to change our system overnight.

In the U.S., the doctor is king. This is crucial for saving people’s lives. If the doctor thinks there is something wrong with his patient, he can immediately start all kinds of diagnostic tests, get the results as soon as possible, and start treatment immediately. Yet in Great Britain, where the nationalized health care system is managed by bureaucrats, a patient has to wait some 18 weeks for an MRI.

In my former life, I walked in all kinds of Marxist moccasins over many miles and for many years, and I know for a fact that Marxism, no matter how disguised, always begins its way to power by preaching the need to change — a society, a country, a group of countries, the whole world. Of course, people everywhere want their leaders to do a better job than their predecessors did. But “change” is also the very quintessence of Marxism, which is built upon the dialectical materialist tenet that “quantitative changes generate qualitative transformations.” (Translation for the media savvy: If you say it often enough, it becomes the truth.)

In 2008 I could hardly believe my ears when “change” became the electoral motto of the Democratic Party’s campaign for the White House. “Change” was bursting forth everywhere like a biblical shibboleth, distinguishing that party from the rest of the world.

The leaders of the Democratic Party painted the United States of America, the undisputed leader of the Free World, as a “decaying, racist, capitalist realm” unable to provide medical care for the poor, to rebuild her “crumbling schools,” to replace the “shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race,” and it pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. Our media jumped in, and transformed the Democratic Party’s “change” into a nationwide tsunami.

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. Click here and have fun.

The frenzy over “change” brought back vivid memories to me of the campaigns I used to be involved with during my years in Romania promoting the election of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu. “Change” was Ceausescu’s electoral motto, as well. When he came to power, he painted Romania as a decaying, corrupt, economically devastated country, and he pledged to “change” it by redistributing its wealth. That lie, repeated hundreds of times, became the truth. Of course, he certainly did “change” what had been the picturesque, pastoral country of Romania. Here is a sample of Ceausescu’s devastated, polluted transformation. Here is another. And one more. And another one.

I do not intend to compare the leaders of our Democratic Party with a monster like Ceausescu, but their common electoral motto gives me reason to believe that both arrived at their destination traveling in the same Marxist boat.

“Change” is not only the quintessence of Marxism, it is its credo as well. Marxists believes that the nationalization of the economy generates not only political and social changes, but spiritual changes. Eventually, these changes make Marxism a religion — the only religion permitted — and the Marxist leader the only god allowed. The religious adulation of Lenin and Stalin, which filled oceans of newsprint and generated international respect for Marxism and admiration for its leaders, may well be one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated in history. Its lingering tentacles live on. Even today, visitors in Moscow wait patiently in long lines in order to pay their respects to Lenin’s embalmed body, which has been exposed as a holy relic in Moscow’s Red Square Mausoleum since shortly after his death in 1924.

My personal experience with a “spiritual” Marxist “change” began in September 1944, when the Soviet Red Army “liberated” the Kingdom of Romania from Nazi occupation. Stalin publicly portrayed that serene sovereign nation as a decaying capitalist country, and he began “changing” it into what he called “a Socialist paradise.” At that time I was not yet familiar with the organic connection between “change,” Marxism, and the nauseating cult of personality. Soon, however, my native Romania — an idyllic Francophile country whose capital, Bucharest, was nicknamed Le Petit Paris — was changed into a monument to the Marxist who was changing it. Stalin became Romania’s new god. Stalin portraits, Stalin statues, Stalin streets, Stalin boulevards, Stalin plazas, and Stalin factories sprouted up like mushrooms all over the country. Romania even got its own Stalin city.

I grew up with the picture of the U.S. president hanging on the wall of our house in Bucharest. My father, who spent most of his life working for the General Motors dealership in Romania, loved America, but he never set foot in this country. For him, America was just the place of his dreams, thousands of miles away. For him, the American president was its tangible symbol. At the end of WWII, we had President Truman on the wall. For us and for many millions around the world, he had saved civilization from the barbarism of Nazism, and he had restored our freedom — for a while. From the Voice of America and the BBC we learned that America loved Truman, and we loved America. It was as simple as that.

A few days after the 2004 Democratic National Convention ended, Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Democratic contender for the White House, stated that four more years of the Bush administration meant four more years of hell for America.[i] Like Teresa, I am also an American immigrant, and I have spent my 34 American years under six presidents — some better than others — but I have always felt that I was living in paradise.

I still keep the picture of the American president on the wall in my home, and I will continue to keep it there until the end of my days. To me, the meaning of his office transcends the views of its occupant. The president of the United States symbolizes this greatest country on Earth, and he embodies the essence of our unique democracy: a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He is also the leader of the free world, and the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military and intelligence force on Earth.

Next November, we will face a crucial election. For the first time in the history of this country, the voters will decide whether to preserve America’s traditional capitalism, which made the U.S. the undisputed leader of the world, or to transform the U.S. into a permanently debt-ridden socialist realm marching to the tune of Marx’s utopian “to each according to his need.” Unfortunately, our conservative movement has focused this critical electoral campaign almost exclusively on an anti-Obama strategy. This may not be a winning line of attack.

President Obama has indeed bought into the siren call of Marxism, as I myself once did, along with millions of others like me around the world — even including former President Reagan — when we were young and innocent. But President Obama did not come to power following a coup d’état. He was brought to the White House by 65,182,692 Americans who were proud that the U.S. had become mature enough to elect a black president. They were also overcome by Obama’s unparalleled self-confidence on stage and by his outstanding oratory, a combination that succeeded in neutralizing even such incredible disasters as the one caused by the Marxist Rev. Jeremiah Wright — the “adviser for change” of Obama’s 2008 electoral campaign who was caught on videotape screaming “God damn America.” Moreover, the electorate was entranced to such a degree by Obama’s disarming smile that no one has yet dared to ask him why the picture of Marxist idol Che Guevara was hanging on the wall of his campaign office in Houston — as was accidentally televised worldwide in February 2008. Then there was also President Obama’s flamboyance and his flair for grandiose staging. During the 2008 election campaign he easily filled entire stadiums with fascinated admirers. Some of those electoral gatherings looked like Stalinist revival meetings — over eighty thousand people were assembled in front of the now famous faux-Greek temple resembling the White House that had been erected in Denver.

Most of those people are likely to vote for President Obama again, unless our conservative movement will change its current electoral strategy of portraying him personally as the enemy. If history is any guide, this strategy will backfire. The 2004 Democratic National Convention was entirely focused on denigrating President George W. Bush. Remember? One after the other, the participants portrayed him as a “renegade,” a “liar,” a “deceiver,” a “fraud” who had concocted a war for personal gain. One delegate, now governor of Maryland, even stated that he was more worried about Bush than about al-Qaeda. A retired four-star general and former commander of NATO called President Bush a “deserter,” and looked the other way while one of his supporters compared America’s president to Hitler. The result? Bush was easily re-elected. He also won an outright majority of the popular vote.

Unity in a time of war is what made America the leader of the world. During World War II, 405,399 Americans gave up their lives in order to defeat Nazism and the Holocaust, but their country remained sturdily united around its commander-in-chief. “Attacking Obama will be counterproductive for Republicans,” warned Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard’s executive editor.[ii] I second his statement.

Robert Kennedy — not one of my favorite people — once said: “I do not run for the presidency merely to oppose any man but to propose new policies. I run because I am convinced that this country is on a perilous course and because I have strong feelings about what must be done.” Robert Kennedy understood what the presidency was all about, whatever we may think of what he planned to do if given the mandate, and he seems to be even more right today than in his time.

Our country is on a very perilous course.

An April 2009 Rasmussen poll showed that only 53% of Americans preferred capitalism to socialism; 27% were unsure, and 20% strongly opted for socialism. Even Russia’s Pravda chaffed: “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.” One of the most popular nightclubs in New York City’s East Village is the “KGB Bar.” The place is jammed by Marxist writers and journalists, who read from their own scribblings and preach the need to redistribute America’s wealth.

Why would so many citizens of the United States, a country that for most of the last century sheltered capitalist economics and law-abiding freedoms from the evil plague of socialism, now suddenly be succumbing to Marx’s noxious charms?

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.[iii]

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.

On August 3, 2011, the CPUSA again threw its support to the Democratic Party. “It may be early in the campaign season, but the Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for the 2012 election,” stated Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party, in an article published in the People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. Webb explained (emphasis as in the original):

Despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda. If, on the other hand, the Republicans had been victorious in 2008, the character of class and democratic struggles would have unfolded very differently. Our movement would have been on the defensive from Day One, the Democrats would be running for cover, and the Republicans would have an unfettered hand in their efforts to liquidate the welfare state, roll back the rights revolution of the 1930s and 1960s, and crush the people’s movement – labor in the first place.

In November, the United States will indeed face one of the most important elections in its history. On the surface, the voters will decide which of our two main political parties will control the White House and the U.S. Congress. In fact, the voters will chose between keeping the country the leader of the Free World, or allowing the United States to be further infected by the virus of Marxism.

It seems that Artur Davis, former co-chairman of President Barak Obama’s presidentail campaign, who seconded his official nomination at the 2008 Democratic Convention, has seen the light. Davis was the sole member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote against Obama’s health-care legislation in 2010. A couple of days ago, he resigned from the Democratic Party. “Wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities,” Davis said. ”Frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country. I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured.”