The Constitution Party National Committee meeting will be held December 12-13 in Orlando, Florida. The hotel selected for the event is the Embassy Suites – Orlando Airport, 5835 T.G. Lee Boulevard, Orlando FL 32822.

On Friday, December 12th the National Committee will meet at 9:00am, with registration starting at 7:45. The meeting will resume Saturday morning at 9am and end before lunch, so you have time to catch a flight home, tour Orlando or meet and plan with others in the Constitution Party. There are a number of good restaurants within walking distance of the hotel where you can grab lunch.

The registration fee is set at $170 per person, and includes lunch and dinner on Friday. The Embassy Suites provides a complimentary cooked-to-order breakfast each morning. There is also a free shuttle to and from the airport.

FOR THOSE WHOSE REGISTRATIONS ARE POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 15TH, WE ARE OFFERING AN EARLY-BIRD REGISTRATION PRICE OF $140. GET YOUR REGISTRATIONS IN RIGHT AWAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS REDUCED RATE.

The Embassy Suites – Orlando Airport has reserved a block of rooms at $119 per night plus tax. Please call the hotel at 407-888-9339 to make your reservation before the November 19th cut-off date for our special rate! Be sure to mention that you are with the Constitution Party so you are included in our group.

See you in sunny Florida!

Now that the election is over and the American people have spoken, the task for the Right becomes at first obvious. That first task, ultimately, is to find and define itself – and to do so as expeditiously as is practicable. This much is obvious. What is not so obvious, of course, is how this all-important task will be or ought to be accomplished – if at all. 

To the question of whether this can even be accomplished, whether or not a new conservatism can be first, defined, and second, molded into a cohesive movement solid enough to accomplish what it must, that being nothing less than arresting the rise of tyranny and arbitrary government through the advancement of government-imposed socialism, I would submit that it can only be accomplished outside of the duopolistic hegemony of the current mainstream party system. The cause of the new conservatism must be begun and advanced wholly and entirely apart from the Republican Party. More pointedly, the new conservatism must be held as sacred and kept secure from contamination by the Republican Party, because for the foreseeable future, that Party, even if it survives its current implosion, will continue to be entirely void of true conservatism and, as such, poison to any true conservative movement that has the unfortunate occasion to be defined as affiliate with it. 

To succeed, the new conservatism must find a home where it is wanted – outside the mainstream of politics and nonsensical parties – in the realm of what we recognize as third parties, such as Libertarian, Constitution, Conservative, etc. Indeed, it would be most beneficial to the larger movement to have members and activists within all of these third parties taking responsible and active roles in defining the path and goals of the new conservatism, for healthy debate amongst the various legitimate schools of conservative thought and discussion and proper understanding of the significance of the varying trends and norms from the various parts of the nation will be essential to the success of such a movement. That much is, or at least ought to be, obvious.

What is also obvious is that in its infancy this new conservatism and the war it wages will be largely a war of words, that is, words employed to convey and explicitly define ideas both for our side as well as for the opposition. Thus, it is essential in this war of words to not be the one defined by the rods of the other, but to first define the other employing those words that best convey the message intended.

To that end, I would suggest a definition of this new conservatism: that socio-economic and socio-political thought which is analogous to the classical liberalism of such great minds as Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, von Mises, Hayek, Hume, Locke, Bastiat, Montesquieu, etc. I suggest this particular definition for, while it is necessary to divest ourselves of any connection whatsoever to the “nouveaux” or simply “faux” conservatism currently embraced by the Republican Party and its surrogates, it is just as necessary – if not even more so - to define how the opposition is intended by us to be perceived. I do not intend to suggest that any sort of deliberate deception be employed to that effect; on the contrary, I submit that the language and terminology employed be selectively vetted so as to best convey truth, for if it is truth that is the very essence of what we wish convey to the general populous, then if we should employ duplicity and deception to as to achieve our end, then the truth becomes that we are no more righteous than those who would oppress us, and thus the intended affect is obviously lost. It must be, then, that this war or words be fought from the very beginning with the overtly expressed desire and intent to shine ever brightly the light of truth so as to expose the darkness of the authoritarian form of socialism that surely awaits us given the current trend toward “change” at any cost. If the people will not accept truth and still choose willfully to subject themselves to tyranny, only then ought other, more questionable methods and tactics be employed.

Having stated that, then, and keeping in line with professing the truth of the current political climate, my conclusion and suggestion is to redefine the Progressive Left not as they would define themselves (the Progressive Left) but as what they are: new-socialists. To be sure, they are not “progressive” in any sense of the word, with the possible exception of the fact that their “newness” is found in bringing socialism to the United States for the first time. They are, in fact, “regressive,” falling back to the worn rhetoric and failed socialism of past ages – all of which has ruined the respective societies that have embraced such ideas. They cannot be called “liberal” because true “liberalism” is found in the newness of the great minds listed above. 

“Liberalism,” in the classical sense, is analogous to the advancement of new ideas and the promotion of Liberty. It goes without saying that the present self-proclaimed “Progressives” are anything but open to dialogue and advancement of new ideas. Therefore it is all the more fitting to tag them with the most appropriate label and effectively chain them to the erroneous ideology they embrace as their truth, and which is wholly and entirely antithetical to the principles upon which our Constitution is founded: The Democrat Party ought now be termed the “Neo-Socialist Left,” with all the negative connotations of regressivism inherent in such language.

To be sure, those of us advancing the New Conservatism should not shy away from defining the Neo-Socialist Left as such but should immediately adopt such terminology and employ it to the benefit of our cause. Likewise, we should not resist embracing new or, for that matter, old language to clearly define our ideas. Therefore we should not be ashamed to employ such terminology as “Classical Liberalism” or a “Liberalism of the Classical School” in conjunction with the use of the word “conservatism” to that the desired perception be projected. Indeed, the words themselves attest to the truth we seek to convey. Thus, it is our present duty to properly employ them to our desired end.

The article continued by saying, "But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

"After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."

The Times column also reported that the Army brigade "may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control . . ." It seems that the Army's new domestic duties also include "traffic control" as well as subduing "unruly or dangerous individuals."

The brigade will be known for the next year as a Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").

I am assuming that the planners and promoters of this newfound function for the Army brigade envision the Army assisting local first responders in dealing with natural emergencies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like. Good intentions notwithstanding, to assign domestic police duties to the U.S. military is extremely disturbing.

To understand my concern for this new "homeland Army brigade," it is important that we rehearse the principles of liberty as they relate to standing armies.

One of America's most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America's founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian--not military--government.

And after the fiasco of the abuse of federal troops in the South following the War Between the States, the doctrine of Posse Comitatus was enacted into law. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia says this about Posse Comitatus:

"The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services ... from exercising nominally state law enforcement police or peace officer powers that maintain 'law and order' on non-federal property. . . .

"The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. . . .

"The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement."

The Posse Comitatus Act was passed in 1878 and was universally accepted as being a very just--and extremely important--law of the land.

But in 2006, President George W. Bush pushed a Republican-controlled Congress to pass the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section provided that "The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines...." In effect, this bill obliterated Posse Comitatus.

When the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, however, the restrictions of Posse Comitatus were restored. But when President Bush signed the Act into law, he attached a signing statement (Executive Order) indicating that the Executive Branch did not feel bound by the changes enacted by the repeal. Translated: President Bush wiped out Posse Comitatus by Executive Order.

Now, just a few months after expunging Posse Comitatus, President Bush has authorized an Army brigade to be assigned the new role of dealing exclusively with domestic law enforcement and related duties. This evokes serious questions.

Who will give the order to send U.S. troops against American civilians, and under what circumstances? What will the rules of engagement be? How will "unruly" and "dangerous" be defined? How will soldiers be asked to deal with "crowd" or "traffic" control? And perhaps the biggest question is, Once we begin to go down this road, where will it lead?

For several years, the federal government has been accumulating to itself more and more authority that was historically understood to reside within the states and local communities. More and more, our police departments have taken on the image and tactics of the armed forces. And to a greater and greater degree, the rights and liberties of the American people are being sacrificed on the altar of "national security." It seems to me that to now ascribe law enforcement duties to the U.S. Army only serves to augment the argument that America is fast approaching police state status.

If Hurricane Katrina is the template that our federal government is using as a model for future events, Heaven help us! Do readers remember how National Guard troops were used to confiscate the personal firearms of isolated and vulnerable civilians shortly after that hurricane devastated the New Orleans area? Do you remember how representatives of the federal government were calling upon pastors and ministers to act as spokesmen for gun confiscation? Is this what the new Army brigade is preparing for? And do President Bush and his military planners envision an even broader role for military troops on American soil?

Add to the above rumors of thousands of plastic caskets--along with thousands of portable prison cells--being shipped and stored across the country, and one is left to ask, Exactly what is it that our federal government is planning?

I think there is an even bigger question, What exactly will members of our armed forces do if and when they are commanded to seize Americans' firearms, arrest them at gun point, or even fire upon them? How many soldiers and Marines love liberty and constitutional government enough to resist such orders, should they be given? And how many officers would resist issuing such orders?

Remember, it is the job of the armed forces to kill people and blow up things, not to do police work. Then again, Presidential administrations from both major parties have been using the U.S. military as U.N. "peacekeepers" for decades now. So, was all of this preparation for what is yet to take place in the United States?

God forbid that any of the above should actually take place in our beloved land, but I believe it would be naïve to not see that the actions and attitudes of the federal government over the past several years do nothing to assuage such fears.

Change is coming whether we want it or not.  In fact, it is already here.  The nation’s financial system is in turmoil.   The nine largest banks in the country have all but been nationalized by the federal government, the markets are scared and showing it; and, the possibility of a long and deep recession is beginning to put pressure on average folks who are trying to find what all of this means for them. To be sure, everyone will have to more closely watch his or her finances and strive toward a more frugal, long-term outlook. 

While economists are still in general disagreement as to how long, how deep and how significant this recession will be, we are even now witnessing rising unemployment, a lack of credit, and the Fed leading the charge toward hyper-inflation as they crank up the printing presses and create money out of thin air. And while the miscreants on Capitol Hill speculate, hypothesize and hold hearings and point fingers of blame for the current mess, the specter of authoritarian socialism looms over this republic, but the only people who seem to want to acknowledge this fact are those on the right – and no one, most certainly no one in government – seems to be taking us seriously. Indeed, of those who are even willing to acknowledge where we are headed, few will admit that we have already been on our way, ‘fellow travelers,’ so to speak, for quite some time.

To better illustrate this fact, I shall endeavor to point out the glaringly obvious with the help of Karl Marx. The following are what Marx in his Communist Manifesto deems as 10 essential elements to achieving socialism:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to work: Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools: Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form: Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Marx also notes:

“Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

Certainly no one would be foolish enough to suggest that the United States has already gone full-blown “commie.” But, one would have to be a fool to deny the fact that our government and politicians have been moving us steadily toward socialism by their insistence on more and more social and entitlement programs, giveaways, and interference in the economy and our personal lives. Even a cursory glance at the list above ought to raise a few red flags (no pun intended…). Of course the US has not met all of Marx’s essential requirements to facilitate socialism, but the groundwork has indeed been laid.

That said, here is something the average citizen should understand but does not: government is force, and every time government increases the amount and extent of its interference in the economy, in our social relations, in our commerce, it usurps our liberty little by little. It is unnoticeable at first, as such usurpations seem incremental; until suddenly the nation wakes up to realize that it is no longer free, that liberty has been sacrificed for empty promises of physical and economic security, and that the people have received – and will only receive – nothing for the sacrifice of their liberty. People don’t understand this because they have only been taught that government is good and benevolent and that its most noble purpose is to help the people on their way to success. Over the last several decades the general perception of what government is vis-à-vis what it ought to be has shifted decidedly in favor of bigger government and the welfare/nanny state.

The Federal Reserve and Federal Income Tax Acts both of 1913, the New Deal and Great Society and all the social-welfare programs contained therein, and, yes, the extraordinary consolidation of executive powers through the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are just some of the more glaring examples of government interference and interventionism. Certainly one cannot omit the government forcing the nation’s nine largest banks to “participate” in its bailout program, by which these banks taken federal money under coercion and the government assumes what it terms as “observer status” with a non-voting seat on the board. This sounds innocent enough, except for the fact that it is highly probable that at future board meetings the “observer” from the government might offer “advice” or “suggestions” to the controlling officers of the institution as to the government’s position on a particular course of action. Such situations easily conjure up images of the Soviet Political Officers or KGB officials inserting themselves into the everyday business of the citizenry.

It is noteworthy that this is not where we are headed – it is where we presently are. So, what of the future? What will define what is rapidly becoming our American Socialism? Will it merely be an iPod and a cell-phone in every child’s book bag, enrollment in the new national healthcare program, and annual re-distribution checks sent out from the Treasury to those too “poor” to contribute, or will it devolve into something even more sinister? 

The great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote a great deal on the subject of government encroachment in the economy of nations, and we and our “representatives” in Washington would to well to heed his warnings. Mises concluded that government meddling in the economy, interventionism, can only lead to socialism, and that socialism cannot subsist unless it takes on an authoritarian nature, which is its tendency. 

In his essay “Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism (1950),” Mises wrote, “There are two methods available for the transformation of capitalism into socialism.” The method by which the US is moving toward socialism is, according to Mises, “…the method of the Hindenburg plan, the originally German pattern of the welfare state and of planning. It forces every firm and every individual to comply strictly with the orders issues by the government’s central board of production management. Such was the intention of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which the resistance of business frustrated and the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. Such is the idea implied in the endeavors to substitute planning for private enterprise.”

Mises continued his remarks on British and German socialism relative to the United States: “The United States embarked later than these other two countries upon this decline, and is today still farther away from its end. But if the trend of this policy will not change, the final result will only in accidental and negligible points differ from what happened in the England of Attlee and in the Germany of Hitler. The middle-of-the-road system is not an economic system that can last. It is a method for the realization of socialism by installments.”

The devolution of a nation into socialism has as much to do with economics as with politics. Government intervention in the market in the interest of enforcing “fairness” or in striving to manipulate such conditions as to create artificial conditions to continue an economic “boom,” leads to ever more widespread encroachment and manipulation to perpetuate artificial “boom” conditions, because it cannot be otherwise. If government implements price controls for one commodity it follows that the new condition will affect the production of that commodity to where its components must be strictly regulated and controlled, thereby expanding government intervention into areas of the economy never intended by enactment of the original policy. This is the law of unintended consequences, which itself is the result of the short-sightedness of policy makers and economists who look to the immediate solution or fix for one aspect of the economy or one class of people (farmers, middle class, etc.) without taking the time to think through the potential long-tem affects of their brainchild, and whether and to what extent those affects would be beneficial or not. 

Government is force and money is power and the two, force and power, should never be allowed to become concurrently subject to the arbitrary whims of government officials, bureaucrats and spineless and corrupt politicians. Should such a thing occur, as it has recently here with government acquisition of the nation’s nine largest banks, a republican form of government and rule of law will not long endure such temptation and tyranny. 

Socialism is coming no matter the outcome of the presidential election, and in many ways it is already here. The only way to stop it is to un-elect it by re-forming the ideological and socio-economic outlook and understanding of the people. In other words, demonstrate to the masses how government deceit, corruption and misguided planning, subsidy, welfare and other interventionist policies set about to ruin a solid free-market system that works best when simply left alone and unencumbered by government nonsense and politics. Given the current state of the economy and the possibility of what is to come with a pro-socialist majority in both Houses of Congress and occupying the White House we can be sure that things will get worse before they get better. Ironically, for that we might actually be thankful soon, for in our need to gather evidence and data to present and make our case against socialism to the people, government will have largely done our work for us. All we need do is present what they provide, which should be sufficient.

Watching the news last night I was disturbed by the image of video showing Barack Obama HOLDING AND KISSING BABIES.  I was appalled, to say the least.  I wonder if those mothers would have let him hold their babies if they were open to hearing the truth about Barack Obama's monstrous stance on abortion and infanticide?  One wonders if these people understand that if any these babies were born (early) due to an abortion that didn't work out as intended, Obama's position would be to let them die - or to kill them and finish the job, so to speak.  This man is evil.  His success on the campaign trail this year has been due as much to the economy falling apart and his competitor being a tired old man as is has been due to Obama's running a campaign rife with corruption on a scale I have never seen before.  He has repeatedly lied about his positions on virtually every issue, most notably abortion, infanticide and redistribution of wealth through government intervention.  He has orchestrated a cover-up of his entire life with the exceptions of the brief snippets he has decided to share with the public.  His birth, medical, university and some private records along with many of those of his wife - most notably her thesis on "Blackness" in America (a black rage against white folks from what I understand) have all been ordered sealed until after the November 4 election.  Would such arrogance and secrecy be tolerated by any white, male, conservative candidate? Of course not.

Back to abortion and infanticide.  Here are my thoughts on this subject for whatever it is worth:

Abortion is a holocaust.  It is murder.  It is unconscionable and inherently unjust under ANY circumstances.  We all know that when cells begin multiplying and growing they are doing so under the guidance and instruction of the human DNA blueprint so wisely planned out by God.  We all know that these cells are human - that this is a baby.  We all know that when something grows and reproduces and multiplies that is can do so only because it is alive - were it not alive and living it would not be able to grow or reproduce, correct? 

Abortion is the merciless killing of an innocent unborn child by either literally ripping the child apart limb by little limb, burning it to death in a caustic chemical-saline mix, inducing early labor to birth the child early and leaving the helpless infant to die without assistance or comfort, or by almost completely delivering the baby, leaving the head inside the mother while the murderer HOLDS THE BABY'S FEET, TURNS THE BABY OVER AND PLUNGES SCISSORS INTO THE BACK OF IT'S NECK, THEN APPLIES A VACUUM TO SUCK THE BABY'S BRAIN OUT.  No one method is any more evil than the others.  Murder is murder, plain and simple, and in my own very judgmental, politically-incorrect, far-right-wing-conservative-conspiratorial assessment, there is a very special place in hell reserved for such as those who could hold the feet of an infant and plunge scissors into it's neck with the premeditated intent of killing such innocent life.  There, I've said it.

It is unconscionable that a civilized society would not merely acquiesce to such barbarity, but elevate it to the noble status of law - and the Law of the Land, at that.  It is, to my feeble mind, inconceivable that such atrocities could be given legitimate and protected legal status in a republic whose Constitution is supposedly firmly rooted in the promotion and protection of Liberty, to which the protection of life is indeed essential.  When one is deprived of life one is not afforded Liberty.   As President, Barack Obama would deprive millions upon millions more babies of their lives by gleefully signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law, which would purportedly override any and every restriction on any abortion procedure at any stage of a pregnancy.  This is not merely un-American, it is something out of Nazi Germany - in fact, that is essentially how the Nazis were able to lead up to the implementation of their "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem." 

Abortion-on-demand through the third trimester over several years numbed and desensitized the masses to the horrors of what the Nazi regime had planned.  It lead to partial-birth abortion, euthanizing the mentally retarded and physically deformed children to "spare them the difficulties of life," and ultimately to millions of innocent people being killed because the government didn't like them.  The Soviets employed the same policy, as do the Communist Chinese at present.  If you don't think such horrors can happen here just go to YouTube and watch a partial-birth abortion.  If you were to watch such a thing and be wholly un-phased by witnessing an innocent life brutally taken by such barbaric means, I would suggest that there is very likely a special place in hell reserved for you right next to the guy who killed the baby.  Maybe you could even share a drink with Hitler and Himmler - but just remember that even as head of the SS Heinrich Himmler collapsed and threw up in convulsions after witnessing a mass execution by firing squad at one of his favorite death camps.

Do I think it could happen - that abortion-on-demand could lead to people like you and I being separated from our families, and led off to prison camps to be executed?  My answer is that I don't know.  I don't know about a lot of things these days.  But I do know that I am a Christian.  And I do know that a President Obama would not like the things that I believe.  And I do know that he has no regard for human life, that he is a liar, that he has employed a corrupt and thuggish organization to steal an election, and that most people know absolutely nothing of substance about this man because he refuses to unseal pertinent information to be vetted. I also know where he stands on my right to bear arms and the rest of the Constitution, for that matter: 

"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."  Like kill you in the womb. 

I don't know a lot of things, but I do know I will be purchasing non-perishable items, outdoor clothing, and that I will be frequenting gun shows looking to make acquisitions.  Do I think horrors can happen here?  I don't know, but if our next President loads the Supreme Court with justices who interpret the Constitution as being fluid, living an devolving with the times, that tells me we don't really have one and that I should be prepared.

Below is a link to a video I found through New Advent.  It is a little long, but very much worth watching.  It is not graphic or violent - simply words - Obama's own words, images and music.  There is a picture of a deceased baby at the very end of the video, but it is intact - the result of a saline induced abortion.

http://www.onetruemedia.com/shared?p=7030bd098cca768e72d111&skin_id=701&utm_source=otm&utm_medium=text_url

This video should be widely distributed - especially to Obama supporters.  It is very tactfully done, as much as a video on such a topic can be done tastefully.  They cannot deny the truth - and they cannot say they never knew....

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]