The World Apology Tour Continues

No world apology tour would be complete until the Obama administration apologized to China for perceived human rights abuses right here at home. Assistant Secretary of State and left wing screwball, Michael Posner, spoke candidly about his meetings with Chinese officials. The meeting included Posner’s suggestion that Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law represents a disturbing trend within the United States and an illustration on how America must address its own human and civil rights issues. Posner also spoke about the U.S. treatment of Muslims implying that our post-9-11 policies amount to a procedural mistreatment of Muslims and that those policies are themselves, a human rights concern.

Arizona Senators Jon Kyle and John McCain drafted an open letter to Posner demanding an apology saying that "To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive." Just the idea that we would apologize to China for exercising our right as a sovereign nation to secure our borders is ludicrous. Our laws are based on due process and Constitutional practices that protect human rights while China secures its own borders with iron bars and lead bullets. Add to that that China is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights even if we can’t come right out and say it. After all, you can’t anger your banker, now can you?

Of course, the Obama administration only apologizes for America and not to America so Kyle and McCain will undoubtedly have a long wait. The State Department immediately defended Posner's comments. Spokesman P.J. Crowley disputed the notion Posner was apologizing to China when he was actually "standing up" for America by demonstrating how debate works in a "civil society." Crowley did, however, support the Obama's administrations concern of the Arizona law, stating, "There is, as many have said, real concerns about -- that this Arizona law will inevitably devolve into racial profiling. That would be a fundamental challenge to human rights around the world.” Of course, when Crowley was questioned as to whether or not he had actually read the Arizona statute, Crowley had to admit he had not.

Crowley is in good company. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke forcefully about his concerns regarding the Arizona law and how the Justice Department was considering filing suit to block its implementation. Curiously, as he was being questioned about his concerns by Arizona Senator, John McCain, Holder sheepishly admitted that he had not actually read the bill and that his concerns were based on what he had seen about the law on television. Well, isn’t that refreshing! CNN and MSNBC are now the legal research arm of the United States Justice Department. We are going to save a fortune in tax payer dollars now that we can eliminate all those high-priced attorneys and legal aides in Holder’s Justice Department. Apparently, all we have to do now is install a bank of televisions in Holder’s office. In fact, why stop there? Why not let Judge Judy adulate Federal cases and close the Justice Department altogether.

Department of Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, was also questioned by John McCain after she voiced her concerns about Arizona’s illegal immigration law and again, admitted that she had not read the law either but “knows of it”. When a high government official takes a stance on something as delicate as immigration or involving State’s right, I expect that they should have more than a vague idea of what the issue is before they speak out for, or against it.

Arizona has been left to deal with what has become a full-fledged border town drug war. The police are outmanned and out-gunned by Mexican drug runners and American citizens are being accosted while their properties are routinely violated by roving gangs of Mexican nationals. Despite numerous calls for assistance to fight a growing and dangerous wave of illegal border crossings, the Federal government has been deaf to this plea for help prompting Arizona to act unilaterally. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to combat an ongoing foreign incursion onto American soil, the Federal government is now in the process of invoking eminent domain to seize five acres of private farm land in Vermont to strengthen the border between the United States and Canada. While border security is a high priority, the Obama administration is, as with everything else they have done, taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Mexican President Calderon joined with Obama this week in denouncing Arizona because of the illegal immigration law which is laughable since Mexican law is far more punitive and unforgiving than anything Arizona is attempting. Mexican law prohibits any form of assistance until a person’s immigration status has been confirmed. According to Mexican law, even Mexican police, medical and emergency services can be withheld until you prove that you are in that country lawfully. Of course, I don’t hear a whimper from the Obama administration about the danger that policy represents to human rights but the administration’s outrage really isn’t about human rights or immigration now is it?

So why has the Obama administration spoke out so harshly against Arizona’s immigration law? The law is taken directly from Federal immigration policy and Arizona lawmakers have actually strengthened the safeguards that protect innocent people from being needlessly harassed. The law requires that the police must have already stopped, detained or arrested someone under suspicion of a crime and the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in the country illegally before they can be questioned about their immigration status. The laws goes even further in providing protection against racial profiling by requiring that the officer’s suspicion must be based on something other than race. The corresponding Federal law offers no such protection against racial profiling.

The reason the administration is so dead set against this law is because it is based on the State’s right to self determination and affirms the Tenth Amendment protection of the sovereignty of the States. To allow the Arizona law to stand would pose serious agenda difficulties for an administration that is attempting to harness the States under the yoke of Federal control. This is only the first real challenge to Obama and his band of radical friends and Socialist advisors. The truth is the Constitutional authority for a State to enact immigration policy within that State’s own borders has already been tested in the Supreme Court, and our highest court recognized the State’s right to craft that policy.

Despite the precedent established by the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has made fighting Arizona’s immigration law a gilt edge priority because it is based on the State’s Tenth Amendment rights. A victory for Arizona in this will set the stage for additional State challenges against the Healthcare Bill, the UN gun control initiative and a national energy policy. This is about power and they have already lied about the intent and scope of the immigration law to broker as much opposition against it as possible. Fortunately, Arizona has the weight of law, the hammer of truth and the power of public support behind her as she enters the arena. This is still the United States and we still live under the rule of law. Obama may think that the Federal government has the authority to impose its will simply because they are the giant in this battle but they have obviously forgotten the story of David and Goliath. Well, Arizona is ready with the sling of truth and stone of the Constitution.

Paul

Cloward and Pivens - The Community Organizer's Play Book

This is one of the most important pieces I have presented on the Vigilance Project. I must give credit to Glenn Beck for bringing Cloward and Pivens out of the shadows and to Discoverthenetworks.org for assembling so much information on groups and people that would prefer to remain hidden from view. This is long but please read it in its entirety. Trust me; you will understand why when you reach the end. This is where all the loose strings begin to merge and the fabric of what is happening starts to take shape.

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" is designed to create conditions that will lead to the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, eventually driving society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of “The Nation”. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists clamored over the "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it is now called. Many saw this as an ultimate weapon for the radical’s arsenal.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven claimed that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor and that through providing a meager social safety net; the rich only sought to prevent rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times in 1970. Cloward and Pivens wrote: Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters named radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration; yes, the same Alinsky that Obama taught his students about in College. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

Cloward and Piven noted that the number of Americans barely surviving on welfare probably represented less than half of those that were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven postulated that if even a fraction of the potential welfare recipients demanded their entitlements; it would bankrupt the system. The result would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would create "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.

The “Strategy” called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, left wing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all; working and non-working people alike. Local officials would grasp at this idea for relief from the chaos and they would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into anarchy, Washington would have to act.

This “Trojan Horse” movement would seem to have the purpose of providing material help to the needy while concealing the real objective of drafting poor people into service as revolutionary soldiers in order to jam the bureaucratic machine and bring the system to a complete halt. Fear, chaos, violence and economic collapse would all be part of such a breakdown forcing society into radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in the strategy. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States, bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a paid membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation. Curiously enough, Wade Rathke was an organizer for the NWRO before moving on to found ACORN and SEIU. What a coincidence!

The New York Times commented on Wiley’s efforts: “These methods proved effective”. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," wrote Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite moderate economic conditions. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy." As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975 and the entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Surprisingly, both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as openly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued the tactic of attempting to overload the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other areas of the bureaucracy that appeared to have had weaknesses.

In 1982, devoted followers of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which claimed to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with another former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE, lobbied energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with invalid voter registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people, opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives, typically featuring high levels of fraud, with the intimidation of election officials through frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and direct action street protests. Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven clones now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections as encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party". Through Soros’s support, the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.

So what do we actually have here? A strategy concocted by two radial sociologists designed to cripple the U.S. economy and force their idea of social justice on an unwitting society. Cloward-Piven follower, George Wiley, forms NWRO to test the theory which ultimately bankrupts New York City. Former NWRO organizers Wade Rathke and Zach Polett form ACORN to continue the strategy on a national level. Zach Polett goes on to form ACORN front group “Project Vote” in an effort to use the same tactics on the electoral system in the United States to steer future elections and to insure that election results are so tainted that the electoral process in America is disrupted.

But wait! There’s more! The Cloward-Piven strategy worked so well that the next level of radicals, many of which work in or have direct access to the White House and seek a single, unified, one world socialist government, have latched onto these principals to sow the seeds of America’s final hours. In fact, at least part of the push to enact a universal healthcare system in this country is linked to efforts to further disrupt our financial security and to nudge America into an acceptance of more, and even larger, socialist programs to prepare them for “the plunge”.

George Soros is one of the major figures in this conspiracy and has billions behind him to put it in play. His direct funding supports groups that continue to chip away at our current social programs to further the successes of Cloward and Piven. His Open Society Institute leads a world wide effort to export this strategy abroad for all the same reasons. Among other projects, Cloward and Piven’s own group HumanServe, is very active in (get this) Lebanon and Israel. Nothing fishy about that…right?

George Soros supports groups that in turn, support the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The group “Shadow Party” was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes. It consists of more than five-dozen unions, activist groups, and think tanks. Their primary function is to insure the continued election of radicals to the United States government; the same radicals that were originally brought to power by Project Vote and other Soros funded voting rights groups. Do you still think this is all far fetched? An internet search can uncover most of these links and you can follow the strings from one to another to another until the web is visible.

Paul

The Left Tries Tinkering with the Tea Party

During the course of the last year we have seen a definite change in the perception that Progressives have towards the Tea Party. New Tea Party groups began springing up all over the country as soon as the country recognized that despite his centrist campaign, the newly elected Barack Obama had steered his administration hard to the left. Established Tea Party groups saw an exponential increase in membership as soon as the eight-hundred plus billion dollar stimulus bill passed and the focus in Congress turned to healthcare. At first, the organized opposition to the Tea Party was basically to ignore them and the main stream media did their level best; burying stories about Tea Party activists where no one but hard core, cover-to-cover readers would find them. The thought was that without coverage or recognition that they would fizzle out and disappear.

Well, they didn’t fizzle out and they certainly haven’t disappeared. They showed up at town hall meetings during the August recess and while those that got in aired their opinions, the ones that didn’t stood outside with signs and slogans. After the Tea Party launched a massive protest at the nation’s Capitol, the press could no longer ignore the intensity and passion of the people that, until then, were showing up at Congressional offices and town halls all over the nation. Another means of dealing with this threat to the Progressive agenda had to be found. Nancy Pelosi led the charge with accusations that the Tea Parties were nothing more than an annoyance campaign organized by the Republican Party, health insurance corporations and special interest groups. Pelosi claimed they were not an actual grass roots movement; calling them “Astroturf” and manufactured anger. Ironically, while Nancy labeled the Tea Party manufactured anger, MoveOn.org, Americans for Democratic Action, SEIU, AFL-CIO, Organizing for America and more, were orchestrating counter protests and were in some cases, actually paying people to attend; a move which would prove disastrous later.

When Tea Party members began appearing on news programs, mostly on Fox, the main stream media went on an information search to discredit the people that were speaking for the movement. If Nancy Pelosi said they were paid for by the Republicans, surely they should be able to find those links and bring this manufactured hoax to a grinding halt. Looking in every dark corner and alley; under each rock and behind every tree the media found nothing but retirees, small business owners and private citizens that had never even been part of a political protest in their lives. Rather than change her tune when confronted with the total absence of Republican influence in the Tea Party movement, Nancy Pelosi shifted gears and began speaking about the rage that had permeated the town hall meetings and protests. If we can’t prove they are Astroturf, then maybe we can prove they are nothing but an ugly, racist and irrational mob. Pelosi spoke tearfully about how much this hateful discourse reminded her of the anger that had been part of the political scene in San Francisco during the 1970’s and how that anger had quickly descended into violence.

What Ms. Pelosi failed to mention was that the San Francisco mobs inciting violence in the 1970’s were overwhelmingly people on the left; Progressives like herself that did not have a legitimate voice in politics and had taken the radical activist route to force their issues on an unwilling public. The left had always taken to the streets and those marches nearly always became a violent clash between radical mobs and the authorities. Despite the inaccuracies, the main stream media had their new marching orders and began to dig through the Tea Party protests looking for signs that could be interpreted as hateful or racist and started reporting about people shouting out vile comments or wearing Swastikas. Curiously, the photographs that were taken showed plenty of American flags and signs reading “Hands off my healthcare” but none of the pictures were hateful, racist or even vulgar. There were no images of people wearing Swastikas or raising their arms in Nazi salutes. There were miles of footage showing people chanting “Kill the Bill” or speaking about the outrage they felt because Congress had been ignoring them but I still haven’t heard any racial slurs or provocative language. One would think that if any of those things were evident at Tea Party rallies, that the media would have led their national coverage with that. They did not.

Then in August it happened. The Democratic headquarters in Denver Colorado was vandalized. The media storm was immediate and centered on the anger that the Tea Party was fomenting against the supporters of healthcare reform. Every window that had been shattered contained a poster supporting the President’s healthcare initiative illustrating how dangerous these protests were becoming. Within days, the police apprehended 24 year old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack. In a curious twist of fate, Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had actually worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

There was very little coverage of Schwenkler’s arrest and no retractions of the damning rhetoric the press used as they attempted to link the attack with Tea Party activists. No indications were ever made as to Schwenkler’s motive for the vandalism leaving us to wonder “why?” It could simply be that he had an argument with people at the office and had an axe to grind with them but it may very well be that Schwenkler assumed that an attack of vandalism launched against Democratic offices would automatically be attributed to the Tea Party providing Nancy Pelosi with new speaking points about Tea Party violence.

Similarly, the charges of Tea Party hate and bigotry hoisted on the news networks after the House healthcare vote have failed to be substantiated with a single video clip or sound bite. Stenny Hoyer is now saying that anyone that doesn’t believe that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen or that they weren’t spat upon are no different than the kooks that believe the Holocaust never happened during World War II. Sadly, there are miles of records and films to substantiate the brutal slaughter of more than six million Jews during World War II. Those films were taken in a nation that was ruled by a totalitarian military regime that had complete control over the media and yet, these films survived and exist to this day. However, here in the United States none of the hundreds of news cameras and microphones that accompanied those Congressmen as they walked through the Tea Party crowds to take their historic vote captured one scrap of evidence…..not one! If I were a member of the Jewish leadership I would be furious at Stenny Hoyer for even suggesting this charade could possibly be compared to the Holocaust.

The main stream news still hasn’t covered the brutal beating of Kenneth Gladney, a black Tea Party activist that was assaulted by counter protesters wearing SEIU shirts and jackets. The Missouri man was knocked to the ground and kicked for handing out literature during a Tea Party rally. A video taken of the incident clearly shows racial epithets were used as the assailants pummeled this man yet, the gang of thugs were basically charged with a misdemeanor when a civil rights violation and hate crime, had obviously taken place. A similar incident happened in Thousand Oaks, California where a 65 year old bystander that stopped to see what was happening at a Tea Party gathering was attacked and had part of his finger bitten off by a paid counter-protester bused in by MoveOn.org, a civilian activist group organized by the Democratic Party. Local police pursued that crime as vigorously as they did the incident in Missouri, with the charges against the attacker being little more than the equivalent of a ticket of littering. If the press really wants to see protest violence, they are obviously following the wrong groups because there is tons of video they can air if they follow the President’s supporters.

Now we have a new name and face to add to the list of Democrats manufacturing anger at Tea Party protests. Obviously the press can’t find the violence that Nancy Pelosi has accused the Tea Party of so he is going to help her by organizing people to infiltrate the Tea Party protests to create the disturbances the press couldn’t legitimately find. Jason Levin, a media lab school teacher at Beaverton, Oregon’s Conestoga Middle School says they want to “exaggerate the group's least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public's opinion of them”.

He adds “We’re going to attend their rally, but plan to have a bunch of truly ludicrous signs. Things that say “Obama drinks Christian Baby Blood” or “Jesus wrote the constitution”. The more misspelled words the better…You could also dress in overalls with no shirt, or a stained “wifebeater” t-shirt, But you get the general idea. Some other thoughts are to ask people at the rally to sign a petition renouncing socialism. See just how much info you can get from these folks. The more data we can mine from the Tea Partiers, the more mayhem we can cause with it!!!!”

All Levin has done was to provide the smoking gun the Tea Party needed all along. The main stream media has yet to uncover these crazy signs and acts of violence in previous Tea Party protests so the assumption will now be that any violent or rude behavior at future Tea Party events must be the work of one of “Levin’s Losers”. Like that name? I made it up myself! Levin may have created more problems for himself than simply undermining the effectiveness of his own cause. He has apparently been working on his blog and website while he was supposed to be teaching his Oregon students and has drawn some unexpected and unpleasant attention from the school district. Hopefully his lack of involvement with the students actually spared them from the usual radical indoctrination routinely perpetrated by Socialist teachers and they are now better prepared for the realities of life than Mr. Levin is.

Paul

Political Violence? Conservatives Don't Throw Bricks.

I find it mildly amusing after decades of violence from the left over everything from war to the environment that they are so fearful of flag waving patriots at Tea Party Protests. There has been a concerted effort to liken Tea Party protests to the actions of an angry mob but those that have attended those rallies know who and what the Tea Party is. Most Tea Party groups know that the main stream media has been scouring these events so they can hand pick a few pictures of the more extreme protestors to impugn the movement as a whole and it would do well to treat those reporters with suspicion whenever they are present.

The power of the media comes into its own once they have an audio conversation of more than a few words. The less scrupulous of these media organs have absolutely no problem dissecting a five minute conversation and using snippets of your comments to craft a controversial answer to a question you were never asked. Those in the public eye know this and most are savvy enough to skirt these traps by crafting their answers to avoid particular statements that could be inflammatory when taken out of context. Still, a few slip through the cracks such as Sarah Palin’s comment on reloading or that she was putting a “sight” on Democrats she was “targeting” in the 2010 elections.

Sarah Palin was the subject of numerous jokes during the 2008 campaign because she is an avid hunter in her home State of Alaska. He references to weapons and hunting terminology was meant to be an “in your face” swipe at those who tried to use her love of hunting against her and rather than submit to the criticisms, she decided to wear it as a badge of courage. The left however, seized the opportunity to claim her statements were meant to incite violence against Democrats and attempted to link the post-healthcare bill brick throwing incidents at her feet and at the feet of her Tea Party followers.

I really do have to wonder about all these claims of violence anyway. During the heated healthcare debates in August of 2009, multiple windows at the Democratic offices in Denver Colorado were smashed adding up to more than eleven thousand dollars in damages. Since the windows that were targeted held posters praising Obama’s efforts to reform healthcare, Democrats were quick to accuse right wing zealots and Tea Partiers claiming they were trying to invoke fear and foment hatred against supporters of the President’s healthcare initiative.

Days later, Denver Police arrested 24 year-old Maurice Schwenkler for the attack but Schwenkler was neither a right wing zealot nor was he a member of the Tea Party. Schwenkler was in fact, a Democrat activist and a supporter of the Healthcare Bill. He had previously been arrested for misdemeanor unlawful assembly at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN and had worked for the Democratic Party in the past. Schwenkler had also been paid five-hundred dollars by the Colorado Citizens Coalition, a non profit group that supports Democratic candidates, for his work in a door to door campaign to drum up last minute support for Barack Obama in the 2008 election.

While the motives for Maurice Schwenkler’s acts of vandalism were never disclosed, it is clear that this was not someone that had been angered over the Democrat’s push to pass Healthcare Reform. Could it be that this was an idea he and his other radical friends came up with to discredit Tea Party opposition to his beloved President? Could this have been a contrived act perpetrated with the hope that the Republicans and Tea Parties would be blamed?

One can never be certain but since their list of heroes include Marxists, Socialists and some very radical thinkers, it is a credible possibility. This is curiously reminiscent to the 1933 blaze that gutted the German Reichstag building. The fire was deemed arson and there was an outcry from Hitler’s loyal party that Dutch Communists were responsible. Several Dutch Communists were arrested but just one, Marinus van der Lubbe, would be tried and executed for the act. The fire was then used by Adolf Hitler to suspend many of the German Republic’s civil rights and to disperse the various Communist opposition Parties present in Germany at the time. It was not until years later that Gestapo Archives seized by Russian forces during World War II were rediscovered in Moscow. These archives show that the fire was actually the work of Hitler’s loyal SA or Sturmabteilung (Storm Troopers), the paramilitary arm of the Nazi Party. The work of several modern day researchers claim that the fire was intentionally set by SA commandos so that the Nazis, under Hitler’s command, could create a crisis that would radically broaden his powers.

The reality of the situation is there is an understanding among Democrats that most Tea Party activists are law abiding members of society that abhor violence and ignorance. I believe their hope is that if they can connect the Tea Party or Republican supporters with random acts of violence that it will fracture the Tea Party and render it impotent; that independents and conservatives will flee if they believe the Party has been taken over by dangerous factions.

We saw this strategy employed during the Tea Party protest that gathered in Washington before the final House vote on the Healthcare bill. Instead of entering the Capitol Building through their usual underground passageway, House Democrats lead by Nancy Pelosi challenged the crowd as they walked to the Capitol Building. There were reports that racial slurs were lobbed at black Congressmen and that some were even spat upon. Really? Well, despite hundreds of news cameras, microphones and security agents, not one of them actually witnessed these alleged events; there were no arrests made and none of the so-called victims of these horrendous acts would agree to appear on a single news show to tell America what happened to them.

Is that even possible? Do you doubt for one moment that if a Congressman were assaulted, threatened or spat on that the perpetrators wouldn’t have been arrested on the spot? The films I saw of the Congressional Democrats walking to the Capitol Building showed that their security people had cleared the path for them and maintained a comfortable distance between the crowd and the Congressmen. I clearly heard security personnel tell people to move back but I didn’t hear one racial remark. The cameras didn’t capture a single image of anyone spitting and neither did any of the other news networks that were present.

House Democrats equated their walk through the Tea Party protest with the historic civil rights marches of the 1960’s when in reality; it was far more similar to the marches staged by American Nazis, Skinheads and the Ku Klux Klan. Like those marches, this little walk was designed to challenge the protestors. They were hoping that someone, anyone, would do something that would bring shame and scrutiny upon the Tea Party movement. When they couldn’t incite the response they wanted, I believe they made it up as they went along. That is why none of them would appear on the news programs. It is one thing to have Nancy Pelosi tell us that she heard that this had happened, its quite another to convince someone to stand before news cameras and lie to the American people that you were the victim of an assault that never happened; an assault that not one of the hundreds of cameras that were present had filmed.

Now we have windows being broken again; a few Democrats here and a few Republicans there. Even though the perpetrators have not been apprehended, we are being told that it is the acts of right wing zealots and angry Tea Partiers again. Has anyone even asked where Maurice Schwenkler has been lately? No I don’t actually believe he is responsible this time but considering what did happen this past August and the unsubstantiated nature of the alleged assault on House Democrats earlier this month, I am more inclined to believe in Elvis sightings than I am in their claims that Tea Partiers are suddenly throwing bricks again. Let’s face facts. Acts of violence and vandalism are the calling card of the left; not the Tea Party. Conservatives don’t throw bricks and we don’t make pipe bombs. We don’t incite violence and we don’t get arrested at protests. In fact, we even pick up our trash when we leave, something that the left never does; ironically, not even at a protest for the environment.

Paul

Who is Saul Alinsky?

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews calls him “one of our heroes from the past”; Barack Obama taught his theories in college; Hillary Clinton even wrote her college thesis about him. So who is Saul Alinsky and why should we be suspect of anyone that doesn’t grimace at the mention of his name?

Saul Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, and while he never had clear associations to any political party but instead, as Alinsky biographer David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left. Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration familiar to anyone that lived through the 1960s.

His tactics have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. Alinsky, in essence, created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" that is the main underpinning for modern Progressives. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results” which is little more than a rewording of the Marxist doctrine that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.

According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?"

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop his concept of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he gained notoriety as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) which only lends credence to the notion that the ultimate goal of Progressives is the globalization of politics and the unification of the world under a single, socialist style government.

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a cleaner, less threatening word for “revolution”. Not just any revolution but a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is a systematic cultivation of power by a supposedly oppressed segment of the population and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. Isn’t it curious that Barack Obama chose the phrase that we were “five days away from fundamentally changing the United States” just before the 2008 election?

The goal, according to Alinsky, is to create enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted; a revolution whose foot soldiers view America’s Capitalist system as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than the current system’s complete collapse which would be followed by an entirely new system built upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. Can you think of any “charismatic radical organizers that profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed”? Naw….Obama just said he’s not an ideologue so that must be strictly coincidence….right?

We are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations (like ACORN?) to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

Alinsky did not mean the sweeping upheaval as was witnessed in 1917 Russia but instead, viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin who viewed the demoralization and eventual collapse of the West as best accomplished through a “Trojan Horse” tactic; rotting the mighty oak of Capitalism with a disease from within.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care when they first unveil their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of defiant demeanor or menacing appearances that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. Alinsky added, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism; They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies.

Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers. “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly!”; but to Alinsky, it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.

Alinsky viewed the role of the organizer as supremely important; a master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God. Perhaps that explains the unbelievable statement Obama made during a campaign stop when he said that people would have an epiphany; that a light will descend upon on them and tell them that they must vote for Barack Obama.

I could go on for a week and still not be through with Alinsky but there is enough here to spell out who he was, what he believed in and the incredible parallels to the actions and words of Barack Obama. There are reams of information out there on Alinsky not to mention his books and writings that can complete the picture far better than I can. One thing I will add is that you must always remember that this man; this unapologetic radical, is the man that Barack Obama emulates; Hillary Clinton studied and Chris Mathews worships. If you do forget this, you forget not at your own peril, but at the peril of our nation.

Paul

What is Obama's Top Priority?

The President mentioned a whole host of non-descript people that keep saying “slow down” to which Obama commented…”How long must we wait?” So who are these mysterious voices? Republicans have been effectively locked out of the negotiations so it can’t be them. The Tea Party people have been dismissed by this administration as crazy and the polls show that Americans are already angry for being ignored so it can’t be them either. Progressive Democrats are all behind the Obama agenda and are urging immediate action so nope, not them. The moderate Democrats might feign resistance but we now know they are just looking for their buy-out so that roadblock evaporates as soon as the cash is on the table. The secret service keeps the President a comfortable distance from nearly everyone else so I thought perhaps it was the Salahi’s; but they are little more than media hounds and wouldn’t dare risk exposure by taking any side in the discussion.

If Obama weren’t a Progressive radical with a heavy Chicago political background, I might think it were his conscience speaking to him but we all know that Chicago politicians and Progressive radicals have no conscience. With all other possibilities scientifically excluded, that leaves only one voice as the possible suspect; the voice no one in Washington ever mentions….the voice of reason.

I did not find it surprising that Obama didn’t mention the multitude of voices chiding him to accelerate the process; to force legislation before the mid-term elections eliminate the dominance of Congressional Progressives. These voices want healthcare reform with a strong public option because that is the one thing that will bring about their real goal of Socialized medicine within ten years. These voices want Cap and Trade because they know what most Americans don’t. That Cap and Trade is not about saving the planet from global warming but saving the planet from Capitalism. It is a mechanism that will bridle this nation’s ability to further develop domestic energy resources and will complete the migration of manufacturing industries to countries that do not possess the same penchant for self destruction.

We have been discussing those voices for quite some time on the Vigilance Project. The United Nations; George Soros and the multitude of Marxist organizations that he funds through the Tides Foundation; ACORN; The Apollo Alliance; SEIU; G.E. and even though there are many more, let us not forget the Progressives firmly lodged in Congress. Considering the initiatives the President still claims are a priority for the nation, each and every one of these factions are more than adequately represented by this administration.

So why didn’t Obama mention these voices in the State of the Union Address? Because they mirror his own ideas of what this nation should look like before he’s through with it. It’s kind of like Karaoke….It might sound like you’re singing but if you are really quiet, you can hear the original song and artist clearly in the background. When Obama is quiet (he has to sleep sometimes) you can clearly hear the background music in the speeches and interviews of Progressive Democrats, Andy Stern, Jeff Immelt and whispered by all of those radical supporters of the Socialization of America. They are no more dragging Obama to the left than an alcoholic must be dragged to a bar.

The State of the Union Address contained as many contradictions as it did lies. Jobs creation is the administration’s number one priority but we must complete healthcare and pass a comprehensive climate bill; both of which are sited by the business community as creating a climate of uncertainly that has prevented business owners from risking any expansion. The President announced support for developing domestic energy resources in America including nuclear, coal and oil but he has already placed the right people within the EPA that will make sure that can never happen.

Every possible avenue available to the radical environmental movement has been used to indefinitely stall projects that would have developed domestic energy resources in this country. They don’t do this in other countries because we are the only idiots that give them unlimited access to our courts even when the figurehead filing the suit does not reside in the community where the project has been proposed. If the President weren’t merely playing lip service to the development of domestic energy he would be asking Congress to declare the development of these resources vital to the strategic interests on the United States and block interference from both the environmental left and the EPA.

The President announced that the Federal government will fund a high speed rail project because Europe and Japan have taken the lead in high speed rail and we cannot accept second place. Well, high speed rail makes perfect sense in Europe and Japan because they do not have vast tracts of undeveloped land not to mention that many of those nations are barely larger than the state of Texas. We also have the burden of a twelve trillion dollar national debt that White House projections claim will double by the end of his second term and those projections do no include healthcare reform or the passage of a climate bill. To be able to call high speed rail an investment you must first be able to expect a return on that investment. Short of providing a bone for his union friends and of course, GE; there is no return for this so-called investment.

Yesterday the White House announced a plan to provide small business with a five-thousand dollar tax incentive for each new job they create in 2010. In addition, they will forego any increase in the company’s payroll taxes for those new employees. Sounds good right? Not really. The minimum wage established by the Federal government is currently $7.35 per hour. Add payroll taxes and benefits, because we are going to have to provide healthcare and each new employee will cost that company a minimum of $20,000 per year and the tax incentives and relief are a one time shot. That is like saying don’t worry about whether or not you can afford the payments…go ahead and buy that new car and I’ll throw in a tank of gas. Just think how far that will get you!

President Obama has stacked the deck against the American business community and they are not responding to his jobs initiatives or to the dangling carrots of tax breaks because until they can accurately forecast their future tax liabilities, they will not expand their markets and product lines nor add new employees. Unlike the Federal government, business must first ask the question of how they will be able to pay for additional labor or new programs or they will shortly cease to exist as a business.

Curiously, the President has once again proved his arrogance while speaking at a House Republican retreat today in Baltimore. He stood before the crowd and accused Republicans of portraying health care reform as a "Bolshevik plot" and telling their constituents that he is "doing all kinds of crazy stuff that's going to destroy America."

Er, sorry Mr. President…..that would be me, not the House Republicans. I wouldn’t be saying half of what I have been saying if your administration isn’t pocked with people with socialist and communist backgrounds and if your friends and advisors weren’t recycled 1960’s radicals.

Can you deny that you taught Alinsky in college and then applied those lessons to your community “organizing” techniques in the street of Chicago? Can you deny that your climate Czar, Carol Browner, belonged to an organization (Socialist International) that sought to unify the world under a single Socialist government or that your science Czar, John Holdren, proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization in his writings? Can you deny that your former green jobs Czar, Van Jones openly admitted to being a communist or that your own chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel thinks the First Amendment is overrated? I could go on and on but this is getting repetitious.

About the only thing we haven’t discussed on this subject is the purging of your administration of these pariahs only because you have thus far refused to do that. Without the dismissal of the radicals within your administration and circle of advisors, I can only conclude that your aim is to continue to foment support for a Bolshevik plot to take over the healthcare system and are indeed actively pursuing a path that will lead to the destruction of the Constitution of the United States and our Capitalist financial system.

Paul

Anita Dunn and the Ministry of Idiotic Remarks

As in the old movies about Ali Baba and the Arabian Nights, I feel as though we are suffering the death of ten-thousand cuts. The efforts on the part of the Obama administration to forward his socialist agenda are relentless and just watching the news these days has become nerve wracking. Since I am convinced that nothing these people do is coincidental, I am assuming that this sensory overload is part of the strategy to wear people out and dissolve our resistance to his plans.

Now we have Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director taking Van Jones place as the “Minister of Idiotic Remarks”. Do these people not have filters or are they so convinced that America is ready for socialism that we would welcome people that openly proclaim their admiration for Mao Zedong any where near the White House? On June 5, 2009, Ms. Dunn delivered a speech to a group of high school students in which she stated "... two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point...”

So when did a mass murderer and communist revolutionary become a “political philosopher”? Mao's policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of roughly seventy-million people. That is five million more than all the deaths attributed to World War II. Van Jones at least had the decency to tell us quite plainly, that he was a communist but when Anita Dunn was caught on film making a statement like this, her only answer so far is that she was “only kidding.” This is from the same crowd that as recently as last week, were throwing fits over a film clip taken from a docudrama of Hitler’s final days in the bunker where text was dubbed in over the film suggesting that he was in a rant over Senate Democrats dropping the “public option”. If Anita Dunn can joke about Mao Zedong then I would imagine that Hitler humor would be equally acceptable.

Any rational person knows that Hitler is not appropriate material for jokes about political discourse and neither is Mao Zedong. She claims that it was actually a quote she ironically “picked up” from the late Republican strategist, Lee Atwater. Mr. Atwater, as politicians often do, quoted many people from history including Mao Zedong, but he never said that Zedong was a “political philosopher”, favorite or otherwise. Ms. Dunn apparently has the same issues with telling the truth that her boss does.

The truth is, I don’t believe she was joking. I honestly believe that she does consider Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers. Look at the company she keeps in the White House. Van Jones. Oh I know he resigned from his position as “green jobs” Czar but since there are no updates as to his whereabouts and his bio on web sources has still not been updated, it makes me wonder if his public resignation as green jobs Czar opened another door for him somewhere in a hidden recess of the Obama “shadow” government.

Jones, a self avowed communist, advocated the use of environmental legislation to take money from Peter to pay…well, ACORN, SEIU and a hundred other Community based programs and organizations in the largest scheme to redistribute wealth since Johnson’s “Great Society”. He was unashamed as he spouted out racial venom while he described his plans to mutate climate legislation into a giant pot of cash to fund his twisted idea of long overdue social justice.

Then there is John Holdren. Oh I’m sure he admires Mao Zedong as well. After all, Holdren co-authored a book that spelled out the dangers of over population and the draconian methods he would use to reduce the population before we further endanger the planet. Nothing was out of the question including using the weight of government to force abortion and sterilization. Redefining abortion so that we could “expediently” eliminate mentally challenged children up to the age of two and withholding live saving care from elderly individuals that were no longer productive members of society. Actually, Holdren probably doesn’t admire Zedong because I doubt he would think that Mao went far enough to solve the overpopulation problem. In Mr. Holdren’s estimation, seventy-million is two or three billion short.

Let’s not forget Cass Sunstein our “regulatory” Czar. Cass is another one that thinks that American wealth should be redistributed, not to minority communities but to the entire third world. The vehicle for that redistribution? The climate bill of course. It looks like Cass and Van will have to play “rock, paper, scissors” to see who wins that argument; then again, maybe not. I’m sure the climate bill will generate enough in fines, fees and taxes to cover both schools of thought and Carol Browner will see to that.

Carol Browner is our “global warming” Czar; or at least she was since that title may change. Now that data is leaking out that Al Gore kind of stretched the truth about global warming the left is leaning towards the term “climate change” instead of global warming. You see, the highest recorded temperatures took place during the 1930’s and the temperature has been dropping since then. Then there is that nasty little “inconvenient truth” that there appears to be an increase of seasonal ice at the poles instead of a decrease. In Antarctica, while the northern shore shows receding ice, that pesky southern shore is accumulating an additional five feet of thickness in the ice cap per year.

Anyway, Carol Browner doesn’t really care about the legislative process. She has already made her intentions known. Both Carol Browner and Al Gore said that if cap and trade are not passed and if the UN climate pact is not ratified that they will take their case before the Supreme Court to force implementation of the most insidious parts of these legislative nightmares under existing EPA authority. Ms. Browner knows all about the EPA. She was the EPA Chief under both terms of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. In fact, when she left that office as George W. Bush was sworn in, Ms. Browner and other high ranking officials of the EPA deleted all of the files on the computers in violation of a court order to protect that data. The EPA was subsequently sited for contempt of court but no one has been able to answer what those files consisted of or why they felt it was so important to dispose of them. Could it possibly have been accurate climate data? The data Al Gore has been feverishly working to dismiss as rubbish?

Many Congressmen are concerned about the “Czar situation”. Senator Richard Byrd actually wrote a letter to the White House stating his concerns that the Czars have escaped the Constitutional mandate for Congressional oversight and have engaged in activities that are in fact, obscuring and withholding vital information from Congressional committees.

But many would still accuse me of being over-dramatic and alarmist. Why would I believe that Anita Dunn is suspect simply because of her remarks concerning Mao Zedong? If the few radical Czars I mentioned above (and there are more) do not sway you, then what about the friends of Obama that could never have made it into the White House no matter how much he would have loved to have them at his side? Bill Ayers, co-founder of the radical domestic terror cell, the Weather Underground. Obama launched his campaign for the Presidency from Mr. Ayers’ living room. To spite Obama’s assertions that he “barely knew” Bill Ayers, it appears now that Mr. Ayers also helped Obama write his book “Dreams from my Father”.

The other co-founder of the Weather Underground was Jeff Jones. Jeff Jones is the chair of the New York chapter of the Apollo Alliance of which our dear friend Van Jones is a member of the board. The Apollo Alliance was recently credited by Harry Reid with assisting your legislators in writing key portions of the Stimulus Bill. The same Stimulus Bill that will eventually funnel up to eight and a half billion dollars to community based organizations such as ACORN and the Apollo Alliance. The same Stimulus Bill that John Conyers, actually most of Congress, didn’t have the time to read before they voted on it.

The associations with this President read like a “who’s who” of radical Marxism and now we are supposed to believe that Anita Dunn was only joking about her admiration for Mao Zedong? That is the real joke; and a really, really bad joke at that.

Paul

Cloward-Pivens- The Community Organizer Playbook

This is probably the most important piece I have presented on the Vigilance Project. I must give credit to Glenn Beck for bringing Cloward and Pivens out of the shadows and to Discoverthenetworks.org for assembling so much information on groups and people that would prefer to remain hidden from view. This is long but please read it in its entirety. Trust me; you will understand why when you reach the end. This is where all the loose strings begin to merge and the fabric of what is happening starts to take shape.

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" is designed to create conditions that will lead to the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, eventually driving society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of “The Nation”. Following its publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists clamored over the "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it is now called. Many saw this as an ultimate weapon for the radical’s arsenal.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven claimed that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor and that through providing a meager social safety net; the rich only sought to prevent rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times in 1970. Cloward and Pivens wrote: Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters named radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

Cloward and Piven noted that the number of Americans barely surviving on welfare probably represented less than half of those that were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven postulated that if even a fraction of the potential welfare recipients demanded their entitlements; it would bankrupt the system. The result would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would create "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.

The “Strategy” called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, left wing journalists, would float the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all; working and non-working people alike. Local officials would grasp at this idea for relief from the chaos and they would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into anarchy, Washington would have to act.

This “Trojan Horse” movement would seem to have the purpose of providing material help to the needy while concealing the real objective of drafting poor people into service as revolutionary soldiers in order to jam the bureaucratic machine and bring the system to a complete halt. Fear, chaos, violence and economic collapse would all be part of such a breakdown forcing society into radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in the strategy. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States, bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a paid membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation. Curiously enough, Wade Rathke was an organizer for the NWRO before moving on to found ACORN and SEIU. What a coincidence!

The New York Times commented on Wiley’s efforts: “These methods proved effective”. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," wrote Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite moderate economic conditions. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy." As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Surprisingly, both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as openly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued the tactic of attempting to overload the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other areas of the bureaucracy that appeared to have had weaknesses.

In 1982, devoted followers of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which claimed to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with another former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE, lobbied energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with invalid voter registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people, opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives, typically featuring high levels of fraud, with the intimidation of election officials through frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement," and direct action street protests. Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven clones now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections as encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party". Through Soros’s support, the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.

So what do we actually have here? A strategy concocted by two radial sociologists designed to cripple the U.S. economy and force their idea of social justice on an unwitting society. Cloward-Piven follower, George Wiley, forms NWRO to test the theory which ultimately bankrupts New York City. Former NWRO organizers Wade Rathke and Zach Polett form ACORN to continue the strategy on a national level. Zach Polett goes on to form ACORN front group “Project Vote” in an effort to use the same tactics on the electoral system in the United States to steer future elections and to insure that election results are so tainted that the electoral process in America is disrupted.

But wait! There’s more! The Cloward-Piven strategy worked so well that the next level of radicals, many of which work in or have direct access to the White House and seek a single, unified, one world socialist government, have latched onto these principals to sow the seeds of America’s final hours. In fact, at least part of the push to enact a universal healthcare system in this country is linked to efforts to further disrupt our financial security and to nudge America into an acceptance of more, and even larger, socialist programs to prepare them for “the plunge”.

George Soros is one of the major figures in this conspiracy and has billions behind him to put it in play. His direct funding supports groups that continue to chip away at our current social programs to further the successes of Cloward and Piven. His Open Society Institute leads a world wide effort to export this strategy abroad for all the same reasons. Among other projects, Cloward and Piven’s own group HumanServe, is very active in (get this) Lebanon and Israel. Nothing fishy about that…right?

George Soros supports groups that in turn, support the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The group “Shadow Party” was conceived and organized principally by George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold McEwan Ickes. It consists of more than five-dozen unions, activist groups, and think tanks. Their primary function is to insure the continued election of radicals to the United States government; the same radicals that were originally brought to power by Project Vote and other Soros funded voting rights groups. Do you still think this is all far fetched? An internet search can uncover most of these links and you can follow the strings from one to another to another until the web is visible.

Tomorrow we will discuss the connections between Cloward-Pivens, the radical left and the new home of global Marxists, the environmental movement.

Paul