The Federal thugocracy that now rules this country by through employing the politics of intimidation and disenfranchisement has now declared war on Central Floridians.

On Monday U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson gave only 24 hours notice for a “town hall” style meeting to be held on August 17 in a union hall that just became available – for free – and “at the last minute.” Constituents were invited to come and told they would be allowed into the meeting, provided they could prove they actually live in Grayson’s district.

On Tuesday U.S. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas gave a 24 hour notice to her district to participate in a town hall meeting via telephone at 6:20 PM on Wednesday evening. Constituents were told to call her office to be vetted by her staff, and they might be invited to ask the Congresswoman a question. 

Now, politicians are doing one of two things during this recess: they are either holding town hall style meetings that they attempt to pack with supporters, or they choose not to hold any meeting, citing the potential violence of the “mobs” of people who oppose being disenfranchised from the system they fund.

Grayson’s meeting at the union hall was predictably packed. A You Tube video sent by a Vietnam Veteran clearly showed constituents being kept out of the meeting, while Organizing for America members who were not constituents were allowed in. My Veteran friend, of course, was not among those allowed in.

I still don’t know how the “tele” town hall went. You see, on Wednesday at 6:20 PM, my phone rang. To my surprise it was a recording of Rep. Kosmas inviting my family to participate in the telephone town hall. To do so, the recording said; just press “1.” I did and she hung up, which, ironically demonstrates exactly what this Congress really thinks of the people who employ them.

On March 18 in an almost perfectly orchestrated sequence of events that make conspiracy theorists like myself froth at the mouth, while the vast majority of Americans were obsessed with the feigned “outrage” by Congress over $165 million in bonuses paid out to AIG executives that they (Congress) themselves knew of and apparently approved in their passing of the co-called “stimulus” bill that not one of them read prior to voting on, a far more important and potentially catastrophic event took place almost without notice. Only a few patriots bothered to report it, and among those who did even fewer either bothered or were able to adequately and accurately explain it's meaning for us and for the future of our country.

What it means to say that the Fed's balance sheet assets will increase from $1.9 trillion to $4.5 trillion must be understood in the proper context, that being, that the neither the Fed nor the government has anything close to $4.5 trillion with which to purchase any assets. The reader will recall that the Treasury has been conducting auctions on a regular basis whereby it auctions off U.S. debt to whoever will buy it. And, just recently, Secretary of State Clinton made a special trip to China to assure them that the U.S. will make good on it's debts held by foreign entities and encourage them, particularly the Chinese, to continue to purchase U.S. debt. Considering that the U.S. government is in fact bankrupt, in order to embark on this bold new policy endeavor, the Fed will print $1 trillion dollars now, and certainly more later, with which it intends to purchase said “toxic assets.”

Through means of vastly increasing the amount of currency in circulation by printing it literally out of thin air, the dollar must necessarily become grossly devalued, its purchasing power will be greatly reduced and the unfortunate result will be hyperinflation of the kind mentioned in the examples above.

If allowed to continue, this policy will ultimately result in the total collapse of our monetary system, likely followed by a collapse of government. What will follow next is any body's guess. It is most unfortunate that those who currently wield political power so stubbornly cling to the same failed theories of interventionism that they predecessors also clung to. Indeed, at present how many times have we been told by those in Washington that because the current financial situation has deteriorated so rapidly that it is necessary to “change” capitalism in order to “save” it.

The fact of the matter is that we are in this current financial mess because they have already “changed” it. What was changed from the first half of the 20^th century was the almost universal adoption of a policy of active interventionism by western industrialized governments, based upon the misguided and now disproven theories of Keynes. Interventionism, it was posed, was to be neither true capitalism nor true totalitarianism, but rather, “as a third solution of the problem of society's economic organization, stands midway between the other two systems, and while retaining the advantages of both, avoids the disadvantages inherent in each.”³ In fact, all that interventionist theory has really accomplished is the mass deception free peoples, and the unsubstantiated and wholly unrealistic promises of “lasting prosperity” or “permanent” prosperity. An appeal to common sense would instantly reveal the impossibility of a permanently prosperous economy as the interventionists would define it.

In a very general sense, interventionism means government meddling or coercion upon the various aspects of the economy in order to effect specifically desired results. An example of a desired result is the buzz-word, “total employment,” sought by the governments of almost all industrialized nations whereby the government over-regulates and thereby influences various industries by a variety of means to “stimulate” the economy along a path of what it hopes to be a permanent state of growth, production and consumption. Yet what is missed by so many supposedly brilliant economic minds is the inescapable fact that wherever government intervenes, whether by passing mandatory “living wage” laws, price controls, or whatever, the immediate effect is to artificially raise the costs of production – and therefore raising the costs of the goods produced for consumption - above what the unhampered market (you and I) would wish to pay. If the price of the good becomes too high and consumers buy less of it, the costs of the producer increase further and ultimately end in higher unemployment. Thus, the means employed are entirely self-defeating relative to the intended goal. The law of unintended consequences thus manifests itself – what the interventionist policy sought was higher employment, but what resulted was higher unemployment.

Typically this result prompts even further interventionism on the part of the government as it seeks to correct the unintended consequence of the original policy. For example, in the case of price controls, the next move may be to decree that as the cost of the good to too high to attract consumers, then the price of the good will be fixed even lower. This still leaves high costs for the producer, who will be forced to either go out of business (because his revenues do not exceed his costs) or to seek redress from the government. Again, the typical response from government would likely be to fix the costs of those commodities employed in the production of the good to be produced. However, it becomes immediately apparent that the size and scope of the original policy has just been expanded instantly and exponentially, for in fixing the price of these commodities the government must continue fixing prices of others and mandating more and more controls over many aspects of the overall economy. Thus, interventionism, if not abandoned when the law of unintended consequences becomes apparent, must always lead to increased bureaucratic control incompatible with free market capitalism.

A worse form of interventionism, however, is the one that has been employed by the Federal Reserve since its creation in 1913: the policies of so-called “easy money.” The name is an irony in and of itself, for in the end there is nothing “easy” for those who suffer the results of massive credit expansion (creating money out of thin air), deficit spending, and inflationary monetary policy. Indeed, the fundamental underlying cause of the current fiscal crisis, and the thing that has enabled all of the other factors to come together to form this perfect economic storm that threatens to bring this nation and possibly the world to its knees is these misguided interventionist policies of massive credit expansion and inflation. And now, as the nation waits for results of an ill planned and mostly ineffective “stimulus” bill to be manifested, the Fed has been loaning money to banks, buying debt and printing money behind the scenes, almost unnoticed. What they do now, they do in relative obscurity, but the effects of their actions will certainly be felt in the years to come. With trillions upon trillions of dollars being newly created, printed, and injected into the financial system the short term effect may well be a temporary recovery. The effects of the massive inflation that will result have yet to be accurately estimated, as nothing on this scale has ever been attempted. The closest situation to ours was Weimar Germany, and the results, as we know, were not good. Inflation is bad policy to be sure. Just how bad it will ultimately be, and how devastating effects will be remain to be seen.

 A brief but animated interview with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) by CNBC's Erin Burnett and Mark Haines offered some very clear and very disturbing insight into the mindset of this Congress and, more frighteningly, the direction in which they are taking this country. The subject of the interview was the bill authored by Rangel that would tax those bonuses received from TARP money at a rate of 90%, retroactively. In case the full meaning of the intent of the bill is lost on the reader, let me clarify: if passed by both houses and signed by the president into law, the government will have successfully opened the door to reaching back in time and re-taxing anyone or any group of people on income of any sort that they have already paid taxes on. It also will serve as the gateway to substantially higher income tax rates for all tax-paying Americans in the future. To think that once passed, such a piece of legislation would never again be used by the Democrat-Republican Duopolist Political Cartel to either punish certain groups of individuals or to simply tax the American people into oblivion in order to pay for their reckless and, dare I say treasonous spending, is both foolhardy and naïve. This bill will most certainly serve as the gateway to increased government power over the income of its citizens, and therefore to many, many more things that are flagrantly unconstitutional and deadly to the future existence of this republic.

Keep this mind especially considering the fact that as of January 1, 2009, the figure for the total amount of government spending, inclusive of the Freddie/Fannie bailouts, Fed “loans” to failing banks, FDIC payouts to seized banks and TARP I, is $7.36 trillion.¹ Now add to that the so-called “stimulus” package so urgently demanded by Obama and the Congressional leadership, to the tune of $787 billion², the $410 billion omnibus spending bill (a total 60% Democrat/40% Republican special “pork” package), and the fact that the Fed announced last night that it would be injecting an additional $1 trillion into the system to increase liquidity by buying debt from the Treasury.³ Couple this with the Washington doublespeak of yet another “stimulus” package potentially exceeding $1 trillion, and Obama's pledge to cut the deficit in half, and ask yourself, “How are they going to pay for all this?”

If you cannot put the pieces of this puzzle together and figure out this it will not only be you, but several generations of our posterity. This Congress is drunk with power and high on itself and is selling out our republic, our currency and worst of all, our children. And they don't care. Let me repeat that for you: They don't care as long as they can remain in power.

The audacity and sheer arrogance of politicians permanently entrenched in power was personified in Charlie Rangel today as he, in addressing the questions posed by Burnett and Haines, brought the popular notion of politicians being grossly out of touch with reality to a new level. Yet what is most disturbing about Rangel's comments throughout the interview is that one immediately realizes that in his arrogance and indifference, his duplicity and pandering, his dismissal of his own well-documented corruption, he is speaking not merely for Charlie Rangel, but for the vast majority of those currently in Congress, whether in the House or the Senate. That is why this Congress must be stopped.

When Haines explained to Rangel the manner by which Wall Street has traditionally compensated employees by means of the bonus, Rangel had this to say: “When you are directly responsible and admit these mistakes which shatters the hopes and dreams of so many people... you are not to receive that kind of compensation when you have destroyed our economy.” Immediately following that answer, Burnett jumped in and said, “But Congressman, when you propose tax legislation that is retroactive, in a sense, that is destroying the economy, isn't it, because? Nobody can even decide how they are going to spend money or invest if lawmakers are going to come in and say, 'Guess what, what you earned before – forget about it.' Isn't that destructive for an economy?” Rangel counters that this is a tax that is only going back to 2008 and so “we are not going back to retroactively tax something that had been taxed earlier and at a much lower rate.” Perhaps Mr. Rangel needs assistance with the definition of the word, “retroactive.” Today, the day this unconstitutional bill passed the House, is 19 March. The intent of the bill is to take back money paid our under a contract drafted in 2008. If the law is enacted after the time money has been paid out and intends to recoup – for whatever reason – monies paid out prior to its enactment, then by definition it is retroactive and thus opens the door to more retroactive legislation. The intent of the bill is also as punishment for those who received a bonus payment after a company accepted TARP money. The Framers of the Constitution called this a “Bill of Attainder” and specifically addressed this issue within the text of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States: "Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”⁴ This bill is both. According to FindLaw.com, “Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offenses, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”⁵

A legislature that would seek to pass a bill of attainder and ex-post facto is despotic, plain and simple. To be sure, the threat that such unconstitutional acts pose to the future stability and indeed the very existence of this republic are most serious indeed and ought well to gain the attention and ire of the governed, because when a formerly legitimate legislative body seeks to enact such bills as are obviously in violation of the core tenets of the Constitution – and does so even unicamerally but with a large majority of both Republicans and Democrats voting “yea,” such actions mean that the governed are no longer citizens, but are on the verge of becoming subjects to despotism and tyranny. What makes this particular case so very alarming and the reason that this ought to be taken as a very serious warning to the American people as a harbinger of bad things to come is the attitude of the Congress and their reasoning for such feigned “outrage” over a problem that they created in the first place by their unconstitutional interventionist policies and a conscious employment by Congressional leadership and the White House of fear tactics to rush through an atrocious piece of legislation that no one read prior to voting on, and which contained a great deal of items that could well prove fatal to this republic. All of this was done purposely and with a particular intent to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

Rangel went on to state: “When you violate the public trust, different rules apply.” Haines jumped on this statement and called Rangel on his own corruption: “With all due respect, Congressman, when you talk about violating the public trust, you've had some questionable tax issues of your own.” Rangel's reply is frighteningly brutal in its arrogance: “Well, I wouldn't think you know what they are, since what I did or did not is being investigated by a committee by me, so what you're doing is reporting on what a reporter said, because you have no clue as to what problems, if any, I have.” The most telling aspect of this answer was the smirk on Rangel's face which remained throughout the duration of his comments on the so-called “investigation” he ordered on himself. It is important to note that this “investigation” has been ongoing for over a year.

Burnett then asked Rangel, “To be consistent, wouldn't you want to step aside (as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that actually writes the tax laws) for the duration of the investigation?” Rangel: “I don't pay too much attention to reporters that report inaccuracies that I know to be false. In the final exam, I'll be exonerated.” Of course he will be: it only makes sense for a thoroughly corrupt politician to exonerate himself if he has a hand in the investigative process, or if he were to refer the matter to a particular committee,said committee would be stacked with friends and his exoneration assured. He continued: “We can find reporters really governing the house of Representatives... I'm not thinking of stopping my responsibilities as a member and Chairman of the Committee because of a reporter's report.” In case you need the translation, what Rangel was really saying here is that there are indeed some reporters who dig up dirt on politicians, but as you can see such rules do not apply to me or to those in my position. He continued, “You have to have some confidence in the House Ethics Committee... so I'm not telling you anything.” The interview in it's entirety can be viewed here. It ought to be mandatory viewing, as the smugness and seeming impunity of politicians like Rangel must stop.

What is most tragic of all is how these criminals in Washington are primarily the ones responsible for creating all of the conditions under which this financial crisis came to be, yet they continue to point fingers at every scapegoat they can find and lay blame everywhere but with themselves, even going so far as to refuse to admit that they played even a cursory role in enabling the current mess. Finally, in what was a most masterful coordination of events certainly designed to divert the attention of the nation and the world to the dog-and-pony show that was the AIG hearing yesterday, the Federal Reserve announced that it was going to inject another $1 trillion into the financial system. The presses are running as we speak, and with each running our currency, the dollar, is further and further devalued, which will ultimately lead to very serious, perhaps even hyper, inflation. I do not suspect Mr. Obama will mention this on the Tonight Show whilst joking with Jay Leno tonight.

As distasteful as people receiving bonuses from the public trough while running their respective companies into the ground is, it is a far worse offense to allow an out-of-control Congress lay claim to a power that it clearly does not have.  Indeed, had government been operating totally within its proper Constitutional constraints, this country would not be in the midst of the current fiscal crisis. With the Congressional mindset being what it is, with the vast majority of the press still playing the role of cheerleader for Mr. Obama and all of his ill-begotten ideas, we the people have a very narrow time frame left in which we will be able to take back our country from these miscreants. Every patriotic American ought to be bombarding Congress and the White House with email and phone calls. Every patriot ought to be supporting some movement to voice their protest to Washington and tell them to stop selling out our nation, our currency and especially our children. We must be loud and we must be defiant. We must have the will to fight until we persevere, putting our children's future and the preservation of this republic first, because the miscreants in Washington, the traitors who are shredding and remaking the Constitution according to their own misguided beliefs, don't care about us or our children. They care about remaining in power and dictating their agenda and forcing us to comply. It is time for them to go.

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] 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.