Ann Dunham’s choice of major and career is both interesting and fitting, as the discipline had been on the cutting edge of extreme left progressivism since Margaret Mead’s controversial work “Coming of Age,” a book about sexual liberation of women it the South Pacific was published in 1928. Though the book has since been discredited, however it was a cornerstone of radical feminism and sexual liberation that drove the sexual revolution in the 1960s. The discipline of anthropology had been leaning further and further toward the radical left for some thirty years, but by the early 1960s it had become a bastion of liberalism with many dominant figures espousing socialism.

It was a natural home for someone like Ann Dunham. It is also, in a historical sense, an ironic one. The discipline of anthropology began to expand and earn distinction as a unique and useful science to western governments in the advancement of colonialism. Through the employing of anthropologists, governments could come to better understand the natives, cultures, traditions and norms of those places brought under colonial rule. Anthropologists found gainful employment with the military during wartime. Close association with the US government caused much tension within the discipline. “Many served in the armed forces but others worked in intelligence (for example, Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information). At the same time, David H. Price's work on American anthropology during the Cold War provides detailed accounts of the pursuit and dismissal of several anthropologists from their jobs for communist sympathies.”[2] 

Of course, not all anthropologists are socialists, however a noted above the discipline becomes a natural home for those of that political and philosophical bent. Much of the leftward leaning influence in anthropological circles may be attributed, ironically, to that which enabled it to be recognized in the first place. Those espousing progressive socialism harbor a deep-rooted resentment for the technologically advanced societies that they view as harmful to other cultures and peoples. They see the inequality of wealth and power as an undue encroachment and a destructive influence in the world, the haves taking yet more from the have-nots. In this sense, their resentment becomes anti-western, anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist and in the case of Ann Dunham and her contemporaries, especially those who were educated at colleges and universities during the 1960s through the early 1970s, rabid and extreme anti-Americanism.

To better illustrate the general ideological thrust of those espousing and advocating socialism in and through anthropology, especially considering the influence of socialist ideology upon the discipline throughout the 60s and 70s, useful information may be gleaned through the work of Dr, Eugene E. Ruyle. Dr. Ruyle, who earned his PhD in Anthropology from Columbia University in 1971, and who was Professor of Anthropology at CSU, Long Beach is currently a candidate for United States Representative in California’s District 10, is endorsed for the seat by the Peace and Freedom Party.[3] His positions reflect a lifetime of immersion in radical-left and progressive socialist circles, and advocacy of these causes in the classroom.

In a position paper entitled, “Why Socialism,” Dr. Ruyle explains:

For most of my professional career as an anthropologist, I have been concerned with understanding our species, the problems we face as a species, and the role of my country in finding solutions. After considering all the alternatives and all the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the problems we face as Americans and as a species are all products of capitalism and cannot be solved within the framework of capitalism. A new social and economic system, socialism, is necessary to provide the framework to address issues such as war, poverty, racism, sexism, pollution, health care, education, immigration, and global warming.

Socialism will come to America when the American people want it; socialism cannot and should not be imposed on Americans against their will. By the same logic, however, the United States does not have the right to prevent other nations from adopting socialism or any other economic system they chose. Yet this has been the dominant aim of U.S. foreign policy since WWII. This has not benefited the freedom and well being of the American people. Americans are less free and less secure because of U.S. meddling in the internal affairs of other nations to make the world safe for U.S. corporations.[4]

In order to allow the reader a better understanding of what radical advocates of progressive socialism seek to achieve, a partial list of the immediate and log-term goals of socialist politicians, advocates and sympathizers as outlines by the Peace and Freedom Party follows:

·        Double the minimum wage, and index it to the cost of living.

·        Guarantee the right of all workers to organize and to strike; forbid striker replacement.

·        Socially useful jobs for all at union pay levels.

·        Equal pay for equal work, and for work of comparable worth.

·        A 30-hour workweek with no cut in weekly pay; longer paid vacations.

·        Guaranteed dignified income for those who cannot work.

·        A Universal Basic Income to alleviate poverty and homelessness.

·        Tax the income and assets of the rich to meet human needs.

·        International trade agreements must guarantee the protection of workers and the environment in all participating countries; abolish NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

·        End homelessness; abolish vagrancy laws; provide decent affordable housing for all.

·        Social ownership and democratic control of industry, financial institutions, and natural resources.

·        The United States should take the initiative toward global disarmament by eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

·        Withdraw U. S. troops and weapons from other countries, and reallocate the resulting "peace dividend" for social benefit.

·        Abolish the CIA, NSA, AID and other agencies for interference in other countries' internal affairs.

·        Convert from a military to a peace-oriented economy, with jobs for displaced workers.

·        Self-determination for all nations and peoples of the world, including Puerto Rico and all U. S. territories.

·        Defend and extend liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

·        End discrimination based on race, sex, age, sexual orientation, or disability.

·        Restore affirmative action, guarantee full education and employment rights for all.

·        Abolish the death penalty.

·        No prison labor for private profit.

·        Support the right of working people to keep and bear arms.

·        Democratic elections through proportional representation; full political, social and economic rights for resident non-citizens.

·        Honor treaties with Native American nations; recognize California's Native American nations. Defend and extend Native American rights and sovereignty.

·        Provide full free quality public education through university level. Teach the history of workers' struggles and labor's creation of society's wealth and progress.

·        Restore and strengthen bilingual education. Uncensored government funding for ordinary people to create and enjoy art.

·        Scientific and technological research to benefit ordinary people, not the capitalists.

·        Free high-quality health care for everyone, including birth control, abortion, pre-natal and childhood health care. No forced sterilizations.

·        Legalize marijuana, decriminalize drug use, and make substance abuse treatment freely available.

·        Give special attention to preventing epidemics of communicable diseases such as AIDS. Guarantee the rights of people living with AIDS.

·        Restore and protect air, water, land and ecosystems.

·        Promote conservation and develop solar and other renewable energy to replace nuclear power and fossil fuels.

·        End environmental racism: no toxic dumping in anyone's back yard.

·        Massive development of public transportation available free or at nominal fares.

·        Outlaw clear cutting and protect remaining old-growth forests.

·        Promote an environmentally sound agricultural system which meets human needs and protects farm workers' labor rights and standard of living.[5]

A paper presented by Dr. Ruyle at the annual meeting of the Southwestern Anthropological Association in San Diego, California, in April 1977 is summarized thus:

This paper attempts to clarify the Marxian concept of socialism and concludes that social evolution will culminate in a world socialist system. By viewing sociocultural systems from an ecological perspective it is argued that individuals tend to maximize their consumption of labor energy, and minimize their own expenditure of labor energy. This minimax principle underlies the succession of human ecosystems: the process of the emergence, development, and overthrow of class rule. The earliest social order was the primitive communism of the hunting and gathering world, marked by an equal obligation of all in labor and consumption. As this classless society became large and sedentary, a ruling class emerged and feudalism followed. However, in developing the productive forces of society, the feudal rulers generated a new ruling class, the bourgeoisie, and capitalism soon replaced feudalism. According to the Marxian analysis of capitalism, it too will pave the way for a new social order. Unemployment, poverty, crime, racism, freedom of thought, critical social science, free press, and democratic institutions will give the working class both the reason and the power to overthrow capitalism. Finally, because socialism will provide roughly equal levels of consumption and the free development of individual potential, it will become a lasting social order.[6]

The point of mentioning Dr. Ruyle and his socialist speech at an anthroplogical convention is to make the point that a distinguished professor would not gave given such a speech advocating such overtly socialist views at such a major event in his discipline if the contents were not reflective of the mainstream ideology held to by those making up that convention.  The singling out of Dr. Ruyle’s works and positions is in no way intended to belittle or to diminish his accomplishments to his profession and discipline. It is intended only to demonstrate for the reader the general ideological outlook and mindset of those who are immersed in radical progressive socialist thought and lifelong advocacy of that particular strain of political thought. What is clear from even a most casual observation of Dr. Ruyle’s positions and political goals for society is that they are very, very far removed from the reality of how most of us view the world around us and our place in it, vis-à-vis the role of the individual versus the role of government. They are, in a word, anti-American.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

[2] Ibid.

[3] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/

[4] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper2.html

[5] http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/vote/ruyle_e/paper3.html

[6] http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/36/de/e2.pdf

1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and
enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;

2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child
care, elder care and pension security;

3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful
labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and

4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor,
environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.

The document, though not, of course, any sort of official endorsement of Obama is as close as one is going to get. It is, as I have previously intimated, realistic in its scope assessing and understanding Obama the candidate and potential President vis-à-vis the Democrat Party, yet the document also sheds light on the fact that the DSA understands the game very well and furthermore, understands the bigger political picture, so to speak and specifically acknowledges that a progressive President with the aid and assistance of a progressive majority in both houses of the legislature can fundamentally change the playing field and serve as a tool to move the Democrat Party, the machinations of government and the nation more and more to the left and clever closer to conformity with its socialist ideals.

Some brief excerpts of the document state in part:

1.  Obama promises to restore to American workers the right to organize; to renegotiate
international trade agreements so they enforce and do not retard labor, environmental, and
human rights; to re-regulate the financial sector and end speculative excess; to bring troops home
from Iraq and invest the saved funds in domestic needs; and to move toward universal health
care. That’s a program worth electing a president on– or fighting for in the event the president
and his party renege.

2.  Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up
Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant
democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most
favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government
to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed
universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to
develop green technologies and green jobs.

3.  While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political
system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in
November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical
political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.

If that is not an endorsement for an Obama Presidency, I am at a loss as to what is. As I have previously related, those on the extreme left, socialists and the like, take their ideology very, very seriously. It is their very identity and therefore they tend to be uncompromisingly defensive of it in every aspect. They will viciously defend that with which they concur and equally as viciously attack that which they oppose. These are not a lukewarm segment of the population, but rather they are active and radical in every way.   One need only to spend a few minutes glossing over the latest banter on the Daily Kos or other far left blogs and websites and you will soon get the point. One can only conclude, then, that for such serious ideologically and determined radicals to so endorse the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States is tantamount to saying that they identify with him ideologically, and this poses a very serious concern for the future of this republic as we know it, because if these people can throw their unwavering support to a man that they view as their best hope to advance the cause of socialism in this country, then suffice it to say that they identify Barack Obama as a socialist.

It is these types of glaringly obvious facts that no one in the mainstream media wants to let out. It is exactly these types of facts that condemn the mainstream media as at the very least complicit if not active participants in the massive cover-up of Obama’s lifelong socialist connections and associations, because it is never reported. The only notable exception has been the controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s longtime spiritual advisor.

It is such blatant contradictions as these that raise red flags en masse amongst those who study politics, and in particular, among those who have a working knowledge of the politics of the far left.   Though the general populous may well be fooled into thinking that perhaps these people are throwing their support behind Obama simply because he is really the only realistic candidate they could choose from is to misunderstand those who live to advance radical socialist ideology entirely – indeed it is to misunderstand socialist ideology itself entirely. 

One would think, for example, that those of such socialist bent would in the past have endorsed a candidate like Ralph Nader, Presidential candidate of the Green Party and certainly a man with far left if not socialist leanings, yet they did not affirm Nader as a viable vehicle through which to promote their cause with an official statement from the Party itself. Remember, the document entitled “Statement on the 2008 Presidential Election” is an official statement of the position of the DSA with regard to the election, and though not an official “endorsement” per se, it can easily be translated to “this Obama is the best chance we have got, a once in a lifetime opportunity to implement a progressive agenda and move the government and nation decidedly to the left. Vote for Obama and encourage everyone you know to vote for Obama.”

It is a curious thing, is it not, that a man who claims to embody traditional American values and thought in his few writings and on the campaign trail, and who disavows any accusations that he harbors socialist beliefs and tendencies finds himself being endorsed by radical and extreme socialist political parties?

The average American voter knows frighteningly little about Barack Obama, and that is exactly the way he and his handlers want it to be, for with an obscured and shadowy history and the assistance of the mainstream media the candidate is thus free to re-define himself as he wishes to be packaged to voters. Politicians always want that packaging to be as attractive as possible, and so distancing oneself from such “progressive” ideas as restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and enacting massive cuts in defense spending is essential. 

The historical record of Obama’s life, however, will prove otherwise. It will show definitively that Obama has always been heavily steeped in socialist ideology, at first by circumstance, but later by choice. And now he is applying his vast wealth and knowledge of political activism and radical tactics that he amassed as an eager and brilliant student of the subject over the course of his life through his associations and affiliations with many controversial figures and institutions. He is giving the performance of a lifetime during this all-or-nothing campaign. It is the purpose of this series to assist in the concerted effort to expose the true, deep-rooted and extreme socialist ideology Barack Obama has espoused throughout his entire life, and to inform the American that a Barack Obama Presidency will play a significant role in the demise of this republic as we know it. In the pages ahead the reader will see why and how Barack Obama is perhaps the most dangerous man in American Political history.

In his incontestable star-power, Obama is a uniquely American phenomenon: a highly charismatic man and gifted orator who can deliver a prepared speech extremely well, who began life with little and is now a multi-millionaire running for the most powerful elected office in the world. It is, in a very true sense, a story that could really only happen in America, which is sadly ironic because he is a man who hates America as it is. In fact, his love-hate relationship with America and his ideal of America is a prime example of the dichotomy that is Barack Obama. He despises America as it is; yet he says he loves America at every campaign stop. He is not lying, per se, but is withholding the whole truth of his belief about America. When he says he loves America, what he is saying is that he loves America as he envisions it becoming once it succumbs to even more socialist ideology and policy and moves ever more decisively toward becoming the socialist utopia he has dreamed of since his youth.

Socialism is the fundamental change he wishes to bring to America, yet in preparing to do so he must operate stealthily and speak in vagaries, because he knows full well that if he were to openly speak of such things that are well understood to be core socialist principles even many of his own party would abandon him for fear of such ideology, and rightly so. Yet he does, in a sense, speak freely of such things, as he cannot help but to do so. He speaks in a manner employing specific words and phrases with double meanings, meanings that could be understood as well-intentioned and benign, yet clearly understood by those of a decidedly socialist bent as being code for pronouncing his unwavering commitment to core socialist principles. For example, phrases such as “economic justice” are defined by the campaign as meaning something to help the poor, while that same phrase is clearly understood by the far left as well as the far right, though much less enthusiastically, as referring to the basic socialist principle of massive redistribution of wealth through heavy progressive taxation.

Indeed Obama’s life is filled with radical acquaintances, friends, and mentors who were or are not only avowed socialists, but also some who were known and admitted Communists and members of the Communist Party, USA, a front for Moscow during the Cold War, who worked aggressively to further the Communist cause in the US. In fact, even today Obama has found favor with the extreme left, as evidenced by the section of his website named “Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.” The link is here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. Here is the description of this section: 

“This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Party of America may have more socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!”[1]

One would think that a man who campaigns as a “mainstream” American who shares typical American values and beliefs would shudder at a public endorsement by Marxists and socialists on his official campaign website. It is important to note that the above is not an official endorsement by the CPUSA or the Democratic Socialists of America, as these to not officially endorse major party candidates.

Obama’s ties to the extreme left can be easily traced back to his earliest political races, and even prior to that. In fact, in one glaring example of Obama demonstrating his solidarity with the far left and their socialist agendas, the Investors Business Daily notes in an article published on August 20, 2008 in a multi-part series on Obama’s links to socialism that:

“In 1995, he sought the endorsement of the New Party for his 1996 state Senate candidacy. The party — a collection of anti-capitalist ex-communists and socialists that disbanded in 1998 after six years of trying to push the Democratic Party even further left — gladly gave Obama its support.”

“Obama also was endorsed in that election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish ‘an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics’ and is committed to ‘restructuring society.’”[2]

The same piece aptly concludes, “these groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.”[3]

In visiting the Democratic Socialists of America website, they immediately state their purpose:

Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.[4]

In a part of the DSA website entitled, “Where We Stand: the political perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America,” is found a document that states their purpose and intent. It is a concise summary of their particular bent of socialist worldview. Section 4 of this document is entitled, “A Strategy for the Next Left.” It begins thus:

Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.[5]

Section 5 is called “the Role of Electoral Politics,” and states, in part:

Democratic socialists reject an either-or approach to electoral coalition building, focused solely on anew party or on realignment within the Democratic Party. The fundamental task of democratic socialists is to build anti-corporate social movements capable of winning reforms that empower people. Since such social movements seek to influence state policy, they will intervene in electoral politics, whether through Democratic primaries, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts.

Much of progressive, independent political action will continue to occur in Democratic Party primaries in support of candidates who represent a broad progressive coalition. In such instances, democratic socialists will support coalitional campaigns based on labor, women, people of color and other potentially anti-corporate elements.

Electoral tactics are only a means for democratic socialists; the building of a powerful anti-corporate coalition is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates mobilize such coalitions, democratic socialists will build such organizations and candidacies. However, to democratize U.S. electoral politics - whatever its party form -requires serious campaign finance reform both within and without the Democratic Party.[6]

Finally, section 6 of the document is entitled, “The Role of Democratic Socialists,” and states in part:

The founding document [of the DSA] called for carrying out a strategy and program that were already the mainstays of mass liberalism, but moving this broad liberal coalition considerably to the left. DSA's new document points in another direction, toward the founding of a new progressive movement...a next Left.

The success of global capitalism demands that traditional democratic standards of justice, equality, and decency be undermined. [Emphasis mine] For the simple dream of a comfortable standard of living, of community, and of equity to be realized, radical political, economic, and social changes in the established order are required.

The belief is widespread that we stand at the beginning of a new political era -- that the Left must create a new vision and a new mission rooted in a new sense of purpose. Democratic socialists have an historic opportunity and responsibility to play a central role in the founding of a next Left, and DSA is prepared to meet this challenge.[7]

It is glaringly obvious that that the DSA, just as any true socialist organization, operates via an ”ends justify the means” philosophy. It is also clear that while they would prefer to remain a “third party” entity and amass power and influence by building their own organizations and extending their own power base, that they readily acknowledge the improbability of being able to do so. Thus they recognize the necessity of operating within an already existing power base and legitimately recognized third party unstained by the stigma of the images that the word “socialist” conjures up. They therefore are open to, if not enthusiastic about, operating within the major political party with which they can most closely ideologically identify, that being the Democrat Party. The DSA is realistic in its assessment that at times even Democrat candidates will be at odds with the socialist principles being advanced by the DSA, but are willing to wait for those candidates to come along with whom they can most closely identify and who will likely be more sympathetic to the socialist cause.

To that end, the Democratic Socialists of America are more excited and optimistic about the 2008 Presidential election than they have been in recent memory. They are so excited that they have released a statement on the 2008 Presidential Election that offers encouragement to the DSA Party faithful regarding the prospects of an Obama Presidency. Though neither the DSA nor the CPUSA will actively officially endorse or campaign for even a far left Democrat, they will support him because they understand the reality that the political scene in the United States is such that such candidates are their best hope to manipulate and influence the system to conform to its radical agenda.

[1] http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama. 

[2] Finding Friends On Far, Far Left By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008

[3] Ibid.

[4]http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

[5]http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

Barack Obama, a virtual unknown until 2004 when he was invited to give a prime-time address at the Democrat National Convention in Boston, has shot to the forefront of the national political scene and become the quintessential political “rock-star” almost overnight. His is a compelling and historical candidacy of firsts, not the least significant of these being that he is the first African-American to win the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States. But the flip side is that Obama’s candidacy is also a first in some questionable ways. For instance, there has never been, in the history of this nation, a candidate for the highest office in the land who has simply come out of nowhere and so quickly and successfully captured national attention and approval and yet accomplished this without revealing who he is or, with the glaring exception of a few hot button issues, what he believes. We know disturbingly little about Senator Barack Obama, and as time goes on it becomes all the more clear that this is not by accident. 

Indeed, there is so little in the way of writings (none) wherein he divulges his true thoughts and opinions on divers political matters as to allow potential supporters and voters to come to a full and well-rounded understanding of the “real” Obama that the initial researchers, journalists and anyone wanting to gain an in depth understanding of who this man is and what he believes at his core must resort to combing through news paper stories and articles previously written about him; and, for the most dedicated, this also meant the necessity of travel to the four corners of the globe to track down and interview those people with whom Obama spent the various period of his life. This author is most grateful to those who have undertaken such difficult and grueling work, because that work has come at a price.

Those who first began researching Senator Barack Obama to report on his life, his beliefs, where he has been and what he has done and said have at first had to largely rely upon the works penned by Obama himself: Dreams of My Father, The Audacity of Hope, and Change We Can Believe In, Obama’s campaign-plan for fundamentally changing America. Initially authors were heavily reliant upon these works while digging into Obama’s past to find something, anything, to corroborate Obama’s version of his life. 

What these first intrepid investigators found was very interesting, if not disturbing. In many cases they found seemingly contradictory evidence from what Obama himself has claimed, but what is most alarming is that in many, if not most cases, they either found nothing – as in absolutely nothing to either contradict or affirm Obama’s version and claims; or, they found themselves completely stonewalled by Obama supporters and even staff at the various institutions where they were conducting their journalistic investigations. Of course no one the mainstream media would want to look any deeper into “fringe” and “conspiratorial” journalists claims of a cover-up by Obama’s people and campaign, and yet the harder researchers push the more we see that the depth and scope of this cover-up boggles the mind.   

As if that were not disturbing enough in and of itself, the evidence that was being uncovered by researchers who sought out those who were Obama’s acquaintances and friends, who dug into his family life and began to ask what would otherwise be normal questions, were viciously and ferociously attacked when they printed their findings. And many of those findings are very disturbing. And as one compares the evidence of his early life and formative years with his young adulthood, college days, law school, community organizing and eventually politics, a pattern emerges of a man who was from his very earliest days steeped heavily in extreme socialist ideology of the “radical-on-the-fringe-of-society variety,” and who took great pains and went to great extremes to not leave any sort of trail that would reveal his true self and his true intentions.

In fact, it could be said that Barack Obama, in the sense of carefully choosing what he has said and how he said it throughout his adult life, has arguably out-Clintoned Bill Clinton, an undisputed master of the science of political doublespeak. Indeed, Obama has not merely been careful to the extreme about not letting on to what he really thinks and believes by the cautious use of vague language, but he has also been deliberately deceptive in many instances so as to purposefully mislead the public into assuming that he is saying he believes one thing while all the evidence of research reveals something entirely different. 

As the subtitle of this piece suggests, Barack Obama has been immersed in the extremes of socialist ideology from his earliest years, and it is this very ideology that has determined and shaped precisely who Barack Obama is, what he believes, what he would do and how he would govern if elected President of the United States. It is a sobering if not fearful assessment of the man.

While his vagaries served him well during his earlier years, in college and even at Harvard Law, once he entered into the radical world of “community organizing” and social agitation, and then into politics, Obama’s ability to deliberately avoid leaving a paper trail became largely diminished, much to his dismay to be sure. One need at that point only to research the news articles written about him or his policies and votes, to look into those organizations with which he was employed, and to dig into his personal and political associations in order to formulate an accurate image of who and what Barack Obama is. It is not a pretty picture.

The image that emerges is one of a man whose extreme version of socialist ideology, radical belief system totally anathema to that of mainstream America, and radical associations to controversial and dangerous people represent the core of who this man is.   It is the image of a man who long ago make the conscious decision to advance his beliefs and career by employing the Marxian the motto, “the ends justify the means.” This is the image of a man who will do or say whatever it takes to further his agenda, and having masterfully defined the parameters of debate as well as the field of play such that he could be the one to define himself, all he really needs is willing accomplices to carry out his designs which, thanks to his adoring fans and rabid recruiting machine in the mainstream media, he now has millions of. 

These Obama fans constitute an adoring army that will bark on command to refute rock-solid evidence that Obama is far from the prophet of hope and change he purports to be. In fact, in true “Alinskyesque” fashion, the Obama website even has a section on his website called “Fight the Smears. Help push back on the false and divisive methods of our opponents. Spread the truth.” Ah, yes, and the truth shall set you free. Through this section of the Obama website he instructs his army of rabid progressives to assault any attempts to portray Senator Obama as anything other than the beneficent One for whom the world has been waiting with overwhelming force, shock and awe. For example, the site lists “smears and lies” and instructs the faithful on how to combat them, for example by calling into right-wing radio shows and tying up the phone lines when controversial anti-Obama guests will be on.

Because there was, and by the standards used to gauge most politicians on the national scene still is, so little evidence to help one to formulate an accurate image of him in the sense of being able to know about and see and assess every aspect and detail of his life, there have naturally been many attacks that have been debunked, and rightfully so, for no man or woman ought to be smeared or slandered with labels that are untrue. However, the fact remains that Barack Obama is a contradiction, a dichotomy who, to appropriately paraphrase Karl Marx, operates as a mole moving beneath the surface while leaving no trace on the surface of his direction or true intent.