Inependence Day - 2010

July Fourth marks the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; the announcement that the British colonies established in the new continent would no longer yield to the edicts of Great Britain and would establish a new system of self rule based on the principals that their freedoms were ordained by God and not granted by the British crown.

Like many, I received a mass e-mail signed by Barack Obama and sent through democraticparty@democrats.org; the official e-mail link to the Democratic National Committee to commemorate the 4th. I will reprint that e-mail below for the benefit of those that may not have received one:

Paul --
The Fourth of July is especially dear to my family. For us, it is not just our nation's birthday. It is the day Michelle and I became parents 12 years ago. And I can't wait to watch the fireworks with Malia on her birthday tonight, as we do every year.

As we celebrate the profound pride of being American, today is a time to honor the women and men in our armed forces, whose immeasurable bravery and sacrifice have made our country what it is today.That sacrifice is shared with husbands and wives, with sons and daughters, with fathers and mothers, who are asked to wait at home as their loved ones protect our nation. Their heroism, too, has helped pave the path of our freedom.

Even before we moved into the White House, Michelle was a champion for those military families. She has witnessed their struggles, and she has made it her personal mission to fight for them. On this Fourth of July, she recorded a personal message, commemorating our nation's birthday and paying tribute to these families.

Please take a minute to watch Michelle's video -- and join us as we honor our military families here and abroad.

:http://my.democrats.org/page/m/4052b0db/51f4b9d/6b18329e/74b960b9/1130136430/VEsE/.

From all of us, happy Independence Day.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

President Barack Obama
July 4th, 2010


The President’s message mentions family and fireworks or more specifically, his family and fireworks. Yes, just as any confirmed narcissist would do, he has even managed to make Independence Day about him. It’s not just our nation’s birthday…it’s the day that he became a parent twelve years ago. In all fairness he did mention the brave men and women serving in America’s armed forces and I have no issue with that except to say that he failed to mention the real reason we celebrate the Fourth of July.

Considering the President has a staff of speech writers, advisors and special advisors, I doubt that failure was an oversight. Perhaps the President fears that drawing attention to the Declaration of Independence would create additional impediments for his radical Progressive (Socialist) agenda. Let’s face it; the Declaration of Independence was more than just a document that announced our intention to sever ties with Great Britain. The Declaration also included a list of grievances that the colonists noted as justification for their actions. Many of the grievances written into the Declaration of Independence are once again becoming issues in the United States but this time the oppressor is not the King of England, it is the Federal Government itself. Don’t believe me?

Well, the Declaration begins, in part, by saying that “…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” It is clear to most that the passage of TARP, Healthcare Reform and the current drive to pass the cap and trade and immigration reform legislation has all happened without the consent of the governed. In fact, the polls against such legislation and the massive public outcry witnessed throughout the process displays that this administration has not only sought to forward their agenda without the consent of public but in spite of it.

One of the grievances listed in the Declaration says: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Doesn’t that sound like the entire argument behind Federal opposition to the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law (SB1070). The Governor signed a bill into law presented to her by the duly elected State Legislature to address the immediate and pressing need of reigning in illegal immigration and the crime that accompanies it. Once signed into law, the Federal Government is now prepared to sue Arizona because Immigration policy, in their interpretation, is the sole responsibility of the Federal government; a responsibility that the Federal Government has chosen to ignore for political expedience.

How about this one? “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” No, I’m not making this up…it’s in the original document. There are hundreds of agencies and panels created by the new healthcare bill alone. Let’s not forget the debt reduction panel that is now meeting in secret to figure out how the American Tax payer is going to resolve the trillions this President intends to add to our already massive public debt. Of course their findings will not be released until December 2010, well after the mid-term elections. We have a gulf oil spill commission to study the effects and suggestions to effect remediation of the leak but just this past week, the President established a second commission to oversee the operations of the first commission. The EPA under the Obama administration is using their newly expanded powers to threaten Congress to vote for Cap and Trade or else. If Cap and trade is not passed, the EPA warned Congress, the nation will face dire economic consequences as the administration unilaterally enacts carbon restrictions that will bring American businesses to a halt.

How about: “He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation”. What is Cap and Trade, Climate Accords and the U.N. Small Arms agreement other than allowing a commission of foreign powers to exact controlling power over the citizens of America without our consent or representation"? Yes, it can be argued that there is representation because those agreements must be ratified by the Senate, but we have all seen the coercion and bribery used to gain Senate support for other items in the President’s agenda so can we be absolutely certain that the rights of free American’s are being protected if the process allows any meetings to be held in secret? Do we really have representation if we are bound to foreign agreements once they are ratified and have no power to rescind bad agreements through our electoral process?

Then there is: “For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” The Federal Government may not have suspended the State legislatures but the actions of the Federal Government since the inception of the Progressive Era have rendered them increasingly impotent. The Federal Government has gained control of millions of acres of State lands and in some cases, lands equal to 90% of the State’s entire land mass. Those lands can not be exploited for their rich mineral deposits nor can they be used for private purposes that could generate billions in revenues for the afflicted States. States that have enacted legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens to own guns for hunting and for their own protection have received letters from Federal authorities reminding them that Federal Law supersedes State law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. States that have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from having to purchase healthcare insurance because of the unlawful mandates in the healthcare bill are facing court challenges under that same Supremacy Clause.

Of course, to have that supremacy, the Federal law in question must be constitutional but now that we have adopted a policy that allows ideologues with no judicial qualifications to be seated in the Supreme Court simply because their politics favor the President’s agenda, is there any doubt that the highest court in the land is now as completely corrupted as the Federal Government is?

No, the President will not mention the founders or the actual Declaration of Independence on Independence Day. He knows full well that if more people actually read this incredibly important document or took an interest in the Founding Fathers that not only his agenda, but the Democratic Party as well as the Progressive movement would be brought to their knees. Do not be fooled by the Obama’s feigned respect of the armed forces. Progressives know all to well that everyone in the military has taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and that this oath takes precedent over the orders issued by the commander in chief. Obama’s glowing admiration of the military is meant simply to hold them at bay while he continues to “transform America” little by little; hoping they won’t notice until he’s done.

Paul

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

The Green Movement - Eco Terror or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".

Paul

No Climate Change? Rename the Climate Bill - The American Power Act

I have often said that the environmental movement is the new home for socialists and radicals that seek to bring us to a one world, socialist government. It used to be that the environmentalists were concerned with preserving the environment and protecting wildlife. Now radical social engineers have seized the movement and have laced these efforts with programs designed to hack away at the structure of capitalism while funneling money and industry out of the US and into the third world. To make the case, I will begin with the familiar faces in all of this; the Obama administration Czars and Al Gore and eventually move on to the organizations that are being used to promote this on a grand scale. Yes, they are being used. Even Lenin called leftist journalists and Marxists in the Western nations “Useful Idiots” because they were so willing and yet, had no idea of what they would eventually be doing to themselves.

The argument for global warming has a number of critics that have apparently been shut out of the debates. No less than 30,000 scientists have claimed that their work has been summarily dismissed and their data and findings have been refused entry into discussions and debates on the subject. It seems that anything or anyone that does not support the race to enact sweeping climate legislation is being swept aside. This is not isolated to the work of independent researchers. Several scientists working directly for the EPA were driven out of the agency for insisting that this data be seriously reviewed.

The Data suggesting that global warming is not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon is starting gain traction and in fact, the real data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures already peaked in 1989 and is subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on. After the news broke about manipulated data and damaging e-mails surrounding the so-called “climate researchers”, the sinister powers behind this scam have simply renamed the Climate Bill “The American Power Act” to hide the connection between the people that will gain from this and the crippled global warming argument. The name change is being attempted to try and fool people into believing that this is about revitalizing our power systems instead of admitting it is about the power that will be stolen from the American people. This legislation will damage industry in the U.S., strain our already challenged economy and remove your basic freedom to decide how much power you will personally use by making it too expensive to purchase. It isn’t all bad though…some people are positioned to make enormous amounts of money because they are strategically invested to gain from the Climate Bill or the America Power Act, as it is now being called.

Al Gore received much notoriety over his film “An Inconvenient Truth” but the real inconvenience is that a number of his facts were improperly arrived at and there are some serious flaws with the claims this film has made and in the data used to formulate those claims. Even though the UK Supreme court decided that the flaws in the film are significant enough to require schools in Great Britain that wish to show the film pass out an accompanying list of corrections, Mr. Gore feels no compelling reason to answer questions about those inconsistencies. The sad fact is that Mr. Gore has already made millions from that film and has made technology investments that will net him billions if the U.S. Climate Bill passes into law. He is now making sizable investments with the money he earned through his film to fund activist groups that favor the American Power Act. Now isn’t that curious?

Then there is Carol Browner, the White House "Climate Czar". She headed the EPA during both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency's history. Carol Browner received her education in the University of Florida. Coincidentally, that is the same school that N. David Cook attended. You remember Dr. Cook. He is the man that started the hate rhetoric about Christopher Columbus and the evil European explorers the infected the new world.

On Browner’s final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, she ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration. It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives as well. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court. Were all the high ranking officials of the Clinton era EPA playing games on their office computers or was there something that had to be deleted? Remember the Coward-Piven Strategy can only be successful if its use remains secret.

Of course an almost manic desire for secrecy is nothing new for Carol Browner or for that matter, the Obama administration. In recent meetings Browner had with U.S. Auto manufacturers regarding the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards, it was disclosed by a participant in those meetings that Ms. Browner ordered that no notes were to be taken and none of the meeting issues were to be discussed outside of the meeting. This is a very troubling revelation when we are discussion an appointee that promised his administration would finally offer the American people transparency in their government. We thought he meant openness but apparently his interpretation of transparency has more to do with invisibility.

Browner is a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of Socialist International. Oddly enough, the group's web site was recently scrubbed to remove Browner's picture and biography, but her name is still listed next to the photo-biographies of her 14 colleagues on the commission. Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 "social democratic, socialist and labor parties" in 55 countries. SI's "organizing document" cites capitalism as the cause of "devastating crises," "mass unemployment," "imperialist expansion," and "colonial exploitation" worldwide. The Commission for a Sustainable World Society, with which Browner worked, contends that "the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”

There’s another one of those curious little points. Only the “developed world” would be required by the U.N.’s climate initiatives to “reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions." Even though developing nation’s manufacturing and industrial centers use fuels and manufacturing processes that are far more damaging to the ecology than developed nations, they would be exempt. Instead of a comprehensive climate program to reduce harmful emissions, that sounds more like a social program designed to shift industrial growth from Western Democracies to the third world. It also sounds incredibly similar to the mission statement from Carol Browner’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

Well what do you know? Just when we needed proof that Ms. Browner’s agenda has more to do with changing the United States economic system than it does with changing the climate, along comes Cass Sunstein the White House “Regulatory Czar”. Mr. Sunstein penned a 2007 University of Chicago Law School paper with fellow attorney Eric A. Posner, in which he debated whether America should pay "justice" to the world by entering into a compensation agreement that would be a net financial loss for the U.S. He argues it is "desirable" to redistribute America's wealth to poorer nations.

Throughout Sunstein's paper, entitled "Climate Change Justice", he maintains U.S. wealth should be redistributed to poorer nations. The paper makes references to terms such as "distributive justice" several times throughout the 39 page document. In the paper Sunstein says: "It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid," He adds: "We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.”

Sunstein also suggests "If the United States agrees to participate in a climate change agreement on terms that are not in the nation's interest, but that help the world as a whole, there would be no reason for complaint, certainly if such participation is more helpful to poor nations than conventional foreign-aid alternatives". He also maintains: "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

Of course, if I am going to post quotes from the Obama administration how could I possibly forget Obama’s former green jobs Czar, Van Jones. He may be gone, but he is definitely not forgotten. Mr. Jones is an invaluable addition to this collection because he cared so little about what he said out loud. His quotes and video statements can still be easily found on the internet, mostly because there is no longer a need to hide them. In the end, it was not his racist statements that white businesses were steering pollution into minority neighborhoods, nor his open admission that he was a communist that forced his resignation from the White House. It wasn’t even unceasing rhetoric about how they would use the farce of “green jobs” to steer billions of dollars to ease, what he considered, racial injustices. He was forced to resign because he was one of the radical fools that signed a petition demanding the Bush administration admit their guilt in concocting the 9/11 attacks so they could launch a war on Islam.

The only reason I feel compelled to mention his quotes now, is because after researching Carol Browner and Cass Sunstein, it is clear that he was not bubbling over with his own idea of what should be. His statements are directly in line with too many of Obama’s other special advisors not to be bullet points in their plan to reshape global politics. For instance, Van Jones said: “The green economy should not just be about reclaiming throw-away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown-away communities. It should not just be about recycling things to give them a second life. We should also be gathering up people and giving them a second chance.”

He also said: “All the big ideas for getting us onto a lower carbon trajectory involve a lot of people doing a lot of work, and that's been missing from the conversation. This is a great time to go to the next step and ask, well, who's going to do the work? Who's going to invest in the new technologies? What are ways to get communities wealth, improved health, and expanded job opportunities out of this improved transition?” Both of those quotes sound a lot like Sunstein’s proposals on redistribution and a plan to correct some of the ills that Browner blames on capitalism.

Some may say that wanting to put people to work and provide healthcare might be social programs, but is Mr. Jones really suggesting socialism? Well, read on because he also said "…But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country. And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that's what's great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.”

So there it is in his own words. A green movement should pursue the same steps and stages as the radical movement that nearly brought us to revolution in the mid ‘60s? A green movement that they will push and push, not to transform the energy economy as we were told, but to transform the “whole society”? The idea that this is all being brought about by a multitude of converging crisis’s to force us into drastic action also sounds way too much like Cloward and Piven to be a coincidence.

Neither the Climate Bill, Cap and Trade, the UN accords on Climate Change nor the “green movement” has anything to do with greenhouse gasses or global warming. They have everything to do with seeing America surrender its wealth and production capabilities to give some of those poor, struggling third world nations a chance to grow. This is simply a tool for the transfer of American power, money and industries abroad; to strengthen the UN and other “world governance organizations and prepare the US citizenry for a life securely bound in the Marxist yoke.

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

Target 2010 - Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Barbara Boxer was born Barbara Levy in Brooklyn, New York where she attended public schools, graduating from Wingate High School in 1958. In 1962, she married Stewart Boxer and graduated from Brooklyn College with a Bachelor's Degree in Economics. For the next three years, Boxer worked as a stockbroker while her husband attended law school. The couple later moved to Greenbrae in Marin County, California, and had two children, Doug and Nicole. Boxer's husband, Stewart, is an attorney in Oakland who specializes in worker's compensation cases and is known for keeping a low profile when it comes to politics. Many cases are referred to him by labor unions, including the Teamsters. The Boxers’ son, Douglas, who is also a lawyer, now practices law with Stewart Boxer and is a member of the Oakland Planning Commission, having been appointed to that office by then-mayor Edmund Brown, Jr.

Barbara Boxer has been in politics since 1976 when she was elected to the Marin County California Board of Supervisors. She first ran for the position in 1972 but was defeated in a close election. It was Barbara’s husband, Stewart, that had originally planned to run for the Board of Supervisors, but decided the campaign would interfere with his law practice, so Barbara ran instead. In 1976, she had the support of Marin Alternative, a Progressive (American Socialist) group that Boxer had helped form a few years earlier. Marin Alternative eventually dissolved in the late 1970’s but since Boxer was already elected to public office, they had apparently served their purpose.

Boxer was elected to the House of Representatives in 1982. Serving California’s 6th Congressional District, Boxer represented Marin and Sonoma Counties for the next ten years. During this time she focused on human rights, environmental protection, military procurement reform, and abortion issues from a pro-choice stance. In her first big setback, Boxer was one of the 450 Congressmen and House staffers implicated in the House Banking Scandal of 1992, personally writing eighty-seven overdraft checks while serving in Congress. The degreed economist and former stock broker issued a statement on her part in the scandal saying; “in painful retrospect, I clearly should have paid more attention to my account." To quiet public dissent over her behavior, Boxer wrote a $15 check to the Federal Deficit Reduction Fund for each of her eighty-seven overdraft checks. Well, at least she wasn’t appointed to head the Treasury Department or the House Ways and Means Committee but I think those positions are only offered to tax cheats and not people that merely pass bad checks.

As if to draw attention away from her own fiscal misdealing; Boxer, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee championed the fight for fiscal reform in Military Procurement. I’m sure everyone remembers the stories that came out of those hearings about $400 screwdriver and $10,000 toilet seats, but much of the truth behind those stories were never made as public as the price tags were. Many of the military purchases that were brought under scrutiny were made for special purposes and in very limited numbers, with those few items bearing the entire cost of design and manufacture that would normally amount to pennies per item if they ever went into mass production. Case in point is that $400 screwdriver.

The premier American spy plane of the day was the SR-71 “Blackbird”. The SR-71 has a top speed of no less than Mach 3.3 and to travel at those speeds, nearly the entire surface of the aircraft was made from titanium. Titanium is an exceptionally light weight and strong material but had an adverse and corrosive reaction if scratched by the usual chromium-steel tools used everywhere else in the aerospace industry. Special cadmium plated tools were required for the project but tool manufacturers didn’t make cadmium plated tools for any purpose. Only 32 of these cutting edge aircraft were ever manufactured limiting the number of special tools and equipment the military needed to support them. The few hundred screwdrivers that were needed had to be ordered as a special item so those few tools bore the entire cost of design, tooling costs and manufacture which was added to the material cost of each of the screwdrivers produced, making the price seem absurd to anyone that didn’t know the whole story.

By the way; the $10,000 toilet seat Boxer railed on about was for the Space Shuttle and aside from the few smaller shuttles built for testing, only five full-size, space-worthy shuttles were ever built. Because it is used in zero gravity, I doubt anyone would argue that a toilet seat for the space shuttle is not something you can readily pick up at Home Depot so the end result was a special order for five custom designed and manufactured seats that had to meet strict criteria.

Despite the political setbacks after the House Banking Scandal, otherwise known as “Rubber-gate” because of all the bounced checks, the Liberals in California still elected Boxer to the United States Senate in 1993 where she currently sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Curiously enough, after seventeen years in the Senate, Boxer is still considered a “junior Senator” which only serves to illustrate the need for Congressional term limits as many of the “Senior Senators” have been there for decades; having lost all touch with their States, their constituents and in some cases, their bodily functions.

While Boxer had made some sound choices during her career, many of her votes reflect her Progressive ideology and that ideology has often clouded her judgment in votes that have adversely affected her State and the people she represents. The organizations that focus on taxpayer rights, business opportunities and personal liberties grade Boxer extremely low; in some cases, receiving an absolute zero. Being a Progressive, I’m sure Boxer stands proud that she has received extremely high grades from America’s most notoriously Liberal groups such as the ACLU (87%), the Socialist front Group, Americans for Democratic Action (95%), the AFL-CIO (100%) and the Campaign for America's Future (100%), just to name a few. Incidentally, the Campaign for America's Future is another one of those George Soros funded anti-American groups with links to ACORN, MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote and National Council of La Raza. If that is her support, then we really have to question what they have been getting in return.

Boxer now faces a tough race in California now that many of her policies and beliefs have made their way into the California political spectrum and have done irreversible damage to the State economy. The added taxes imposed by the massive Federal programs she supports promises to bankrupt California altogether and her constituents are facing an uncertain future with State and local services at risk of severe cuts added to dwindling prospects for meaningful work as employers threaten to leave the State or are struggling to remain in business.

Barbara Boxer had some harsh words for the Tea Parties during the Healthcare Debates but is now asking her own supporters to become as energized and involved as the Tea Parties are. Apparently, Boxer hasn’t learned that massive new government programs and the taxes that come with them don’t excite anyone but other Progressives or her Democratic colleagues in Washington. The mask has been stripped away from the Progressive movement and now that many of them have actually dared to speak openly about their agenda, the face that was revealed is not that of a kind and gentle benefactor; but is rather, the harsh and craggy faces of Marxist demagogues that have disgraced the pages of History where ever they came to power.

If America is to ever recover her former glory, the Progressive movement must be exposed, expunged and voted from office where ever they exist. Barbara Boxer is not the whole movement but she is certainly one of the diseased sores left by its infection of the body politic. Her State may never fully recover from their experiment with Progressive politics but unless Californians would prefer that America go down with them, they must act decisively this November to replace Boxer and let her live as a private citizen, burdened with the same load that she expected the mere peasants of California to carry as she enjoyed her life as an elite member of the Progressive ruling class.

Paul