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

The Green Movement: Eco-Terrorism 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.

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 globalization and critiques of capitalism. 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, eolic1, 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?

Currently, half a million acres of fertile farmland 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 wield that power.

Paul

Green is the New Red - Marxists in the Environmental Movement

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. Monday we will 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.

One would think that Data suggesting that global warming was not a man-made effect, but rather, a natural phenomenon should be seriously considered before we enact legislation that will damage industry in the U.S. and strain our already challenged economy. In fact, that data suggests that the trend in rising global temperatures peaked in 1989 and already is showing signs of subsiding, lending even more credence to the natural phenomenon theories. But the race goes on.

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 Climate Bill. 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.

Monday we will look at the other organizations and people that are because they are the soldiers in the fight to bring the message to you. They are the ones that fill your children with fear about the environment and how wrong America is for using so much when others have so little.

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

The Liberal score of Congressional Progressives

In order to reinforce my case about the intentions and ideology of the progressives in Congress I am going to rely on those sources that endorse these people.

Groups that traditionally seek radical solutions in American politics give progressives very high marks and those marks establish a history of their support for extremely liberal legislation, each of which move this nation inexorably into the abyss of socialism. By conservative estimates, the national debt will reach a staggering 101% of the Gross Domestic Product, the entire earning capacity of our economy by 2011, a level that has not been seen since the years immediately following the massive spending required by World War II.

World War II was certainly an excellent reason to take the nation into debt. It took a full thirty years to lower that debt to a nearly acceptable 33% of GDP and that was before trade agreements and tax increases sent many of our manufacturing industries overseas. The current estimates show that the National Debt during the first four years of Mr. Obama’s Presidency will increase an additional $6.6 Trillion dollars; an amount that is equal to the increase in debt during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations combined. So what is the reason for the outrageous spending now?

Even though we are looking at a financial meltdown, President Obama and his friends in Congress are still pushing forward to enact additional massive expansion of entitlement spending and the economy crippling taxes that are contained in the healthcare reform and cap and trade bills. This makes no sense unless the goal is to destroy the Federal Treasury and collapse the capitalistic economic system in the United States. There are those who believe this would force this nation into socialism and eventually, all nations into a single world government as the world financial system fails in a globalist’s expansion of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Certainly, a willing socialist movement in Congress would be needed to perpetrate such a grand scheme. So how can we identify that willing faction?

From Wikipedia “The group [Americans for Democratic Action] was established by prominent Democratic Party leaders in 1947 with the stated goal of combating what those leaders perceived to be an acceptance of, or even an alliance with, American communists. ADA's leaders considered communism (especially as practiced in the Soviet Union) to be both morally wrong and a threat to the United States.”

The original founders of Americans for Democratic Action were Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and John Galbraith. The truth of the matter is that many “new dealers” were part of the foundation of this organization and their real goal was, and remains, to sneak a socialist agenda into the American political system under the radar. By claiming to fight against communism they had hoped to promote socialism in the United States under the banner of progressivism. Today members and associates of the Americans for Democratic Action say more about their mission than their mission statement does. Overt socialists such as Ed Asner, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Faux and Ann Lewis are installed as Honorary Vice Presidents as are many members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) issue “scores” for legislators based on the frequency with which they vote for progressive and liberal causes. With a score of 100 indicating the most liberal and left leaning, I am proud to say that I visited their website and after taking their on-line test to determine how liberal I really am, I scored a perfect zero! I wish I could say the same for members of Congress, particularly the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. So what scores have the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus earned from the ADA?

Let’s start with the founder of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders ADA Score – 100%

Bernie Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments. He was also the only independent member of the House during much of his service there. He is one of two independent Senators in the 111th Congress, along with Joe Lieberman. Sanders left the House in order to run in the 2006 election for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring fellow independent Jim Jeffords and won the election with 65% of the vote.

So how do the rest of them stack up? Let’s see the scores state by state….
Arizona: Ed Pastor – 100%, Raúl Grijalva – 100%,
California: Lynn Woolsey – 80%, George Miller – 95%, Barbara Lee – 100%, Pete Stark – 90%, Michael Honda – 95%, Sam Farr – 100%, Henry Waxman – 95%, Xavier Becerra – 100%, Judy Chu – not rated yet - assumed office July 2009), Diane Watson – 100%, Lucille Roybal-Allard – 95%, Maxine Waters – 95%, Laura Richardson – 100%, Linda Sanchez – 100%, Bob Filner – 100%
Colorado: Jared Polis – not rated yet (assumed office January 2009)
Connecticut: Rosa DeLauro – 100%
Florida: Corrine Brown – 95%, Alan Grayson – not rated yet - assumed office January 2009), Robert Wexler – 90%, Alcee Hastings – 95%
Georgia: Hank Johnson – 100%, John Lewis – 95%
Hawaii: Neil Abercrombie – 95%, Mazie Hirono – 100%
Illinois: Bobby Rush – 30% (don’t get excited – according to the Freedom Index Mr. Rush just doesn’t vote very often), Jessie Jackson Jr. – 100%, Luis Gutierrez – 90%, Danny Davis – 80%, Jan Schakowsky – 100%, Phil Hare – 100%,
Indiana: André Carson – 75%
Iowa: Dave Loebsack – 90%
Maine: Chellie Pingree – (not rated yet - assumed office January 2009)
Maryland: Donna Edwards - (not rated yet - assumed office June 2008), Elijah Cummings – 100%
Massachusetts: John Oliver – 100%, Jim McGovern – 100%, Barney Frank – 100%, John Tierney – 95%, Ed Markey – 100%, Mike Capuano – 95%
Michigan: Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick – 95%, John Conyers – 100%
Minnesota: Keith Ellison – 100%
Mississippi: Bennie Thompson – 90%
Missouri: William Lacy Clay Jr. – 100%, Emanuel Cleaver – 90%
New Jersey: Donald Payne – 95%, Frank Pallone – 100%
New Mexico: Ben R. Luján - (not rated yet - assumed office January 2009)
New York: Jerry Nadler – 95%, Yvette Clark – 100%, Nydia Velazquez – 100%, Carolyn Maloney – 95%, Charles Rangel – 85%, Jose Serrano – 100%, John Hall – 95%, Maurice Hinchey – 95%, Louise Slaughter – 95%, Eric Massa - (not rated yet - assumed office January 2009)
North Carolina: Mel Watt – 100%
Ohio: Marcy Kaptur – 100%, Dennis Kucinich – 95%, Marcia Fudge - (not rated yet - assumed office November 2008)
Oregon: Earl Blumenauer – 95%, Peter DeFazio – 90%,
Pennsylvania: Bob Brady – 100%, Chaka Fattah – 95%
Tennessee: Steve Cohen – 100%
Texas: Sheila Jackson-Lee – 100%, Eddie Bernice Johnson – 100%
Vermont: Peter Welch – 90%
Virginia: Jim Moran – 95%
Washington: Jim McDermott – 95%
Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin – 100%, Gwen Moore – 95%

There are two more members of the Caucus that we cannot score because they are non-voting members from the Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. They are Donna Christensen and Eleanor Holmes Norton.

So far adding them all up, the average score is still 99% in favor of extremely liberal legislation. There are even more members of Congress that score equally as high but do not belong to the Congressional Progressive Caucus for one reason or another. Combined, these are the people that think that Obama hasn’t gone far enough. These are the people that would empty the treasury to fund redistributive programs and raise taxes to stifle an already stricken economy. These are the same people that salivate at the idea of massive new programs that will expand the Federal Government to twice its present size and still want more. These are the people that must be voted from office while there is still a United States of America under a lawful Constitution.

Tomorrow….Cloward and Pivens; evil personified.

Paul

Christopher Columbus 2009, Under Assault

Today is Columbus Day and across the United States the forces of revisionist history are hard at work to continue the demonization of Christopher Columbus. Classrooms are being “infected” with maligned stories of how Columbus and his men intentionally infected the native tribes they encountered in the America’s with small pox through blankets and other goods.

This trend has its roots in 1973 by N. David Cook PhD of the University of Texas. Cook received his BA and MA at the liberal bastion of the University of Florida and eventually received his doctorate at the University of Texas. While at the University of Florida, Dr. Cook received a full dose of indoctrination and as a result, much of his work is centered on self-hate, being the decedent of the European culture. After all, you really can’t be a good liberal unless you completely embrace foreign cultures while simultaneously degrading those evil, imperialist European nations.

His Thesis and subsequent books assert that the European conquest of the islands discovered by Columbus and of North America by later European explorers were punctuated by harsh rule and the new lands were seen as a possible source of slaves for other imperialist developments such as plantations and labor camps. This much is true but this was also the will of the kings of Europe and why the blame for the King’s doctrine is laid at the feet of Columbus is something that is beyond me. Besides, what we are celebrating is Columbus’s bravery in his exploration of uncharted seas and unknown lands, not the political mindset of fifteenth century Europe.

In Cook’s work, he noted the unfortunate infection of the indigenous tribes with diseases that Europeans had long ago, developed immunities to. This infection, primarily small pox, devastated the indigenous tribes of the Americas. Of course, some mindless twits that seek to complete the destruction of Christopher Columbus’s legacy latched onto that idea and concocted this new myth of the intentional infection of the native tribes. This notion is not only dangerous and hateful, but lacks any acknowledgment of the known history of the human understanding of disease.

The ancient historical view was that disease was spontaneously generated instead of being created by microorganisms which grow by reproduction. One of the earliest western references to this latter theory appears in On Agriculture by Marcus Terentius Varro (published in 36 BC), wherein there is a warning about locating a homestead in the proximity of swamps: “...and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases.”

In The Canon of Medicine (1020), Abū Alī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) stated that bodily secretion is contaminated by foul foreign earthly bodies before being infected. He also discovered the contagious nature of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, and introduced quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of contagious diseases.

When the Black Death (bubonic plague) reached al-Andalus in the 14th century, Ibn Khatima hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "minute bodies" which enter the human body and cause disease. Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated: "The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings."

Girolamo Fracastoro proposed in 1546 that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities that could transmit infection by direct or indirect contact or even without contact over long distances. The Italian Agostino Bassi is often credited with having stated the germ theory of disease for the first time, based on his observations on the lethal and epidemic muscardine disease of silkworms. In 1835 he specifically blamed the deaths of the insects on a contagious, living agent that was visible to the naked eye as powdery spore masses; this microscopic fungus was subsequently called Beauveria bassiana in his honor.
Microorganisms were first directly observed by Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who is considered the father of microbiology.

Ignaz Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician working at Vienna's Allgemeines Krankenhaus in 1847, when he noticed the dramatically high incidence of death from puerperal fever among women who delivered at the hospital with the help of the doctors and medical students. Births attended by the midwives were relatively safe. Investigating further, Semmelweis made the connection between puerperal fever and examinations of delivering women by doctors, and further realized that these physicians had usually come directly from autopsies. Asserting that puerperal fever was a contagious disease and that matter from autopsies were implicated in its development, Semmelweis made doctors wash their hands with water and lime before examining pregnant women, thereby reducing mortality from childbirth to less than 2% at his hospital. Nevertheless, he and his theories were viciously attacked by most of the Viennese medical establishment.

John Snow contributed to the formation of the germ theory when he traced the source of the 1854 cholera outbreak in Soho, London. The statistical analysis of the affected cases showed that the outbreak was not consistent with the miasma theory which was prevalent at the time. Contrary to the miasma model, he identified drinking water as the vessel for transmission of the disease. He found that cases occurred in the homes which obtained their water from the Broad Street pump, which was at the geographical center of the outbreak.

Italian physician Francesco Redi provided early evidence against spontaneous generation. He devised an experiment in 1668 where he used three jars. He placed a meat loaf in each of the three jars. He had one of the jars open, another one tightly sealed, and the last one covered with gauze. After a few days, he observed that the meat loaf in the open jar was covered by maggots, and the jar covered with gauze had maggots on the surface of the gauze. However, the tightly sealed jar had no maggots inside or outside it. He also noticed that the maggots were only found on surfaces that were accessible by flies. From this he concluded that spontaneous generation is not a plausible theory.

Louis Pasteur further demonstrated between 1860 and 1864 that fermentation and the growth of microorganisms in nutrient broths did not proceed by spontaneous generation. He exposed freshly boiled broth to air in vessels that contained a filter to stop all particles passing through to the growth medium: and even with no filter at all, with air being admitted via a long tortuous tube that would not pass dust particles. Nothing grew in the broths, therefore the living organisms that grew in such broths came from outside, as spores on dust, rather than being generated within the broth.

Robert Koch was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the germ theory of disease. Koch's Postulates were published in 1890, and derived from his work demonstrating that anthrax was caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. These postulates are still used today to help determine if a newly discovered disease is caused by a microorganism.

So why would proponents of the theory of intentional infection ignore something so well documented? As George Orwell stated in his book “1984” with prophetic accuracy; “He who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future.” It is critical in this day of constant revision and during the obvious struggle for control between the forces of “liberal reconstruction” and those that are fighting to restore our democracy that we hold on to our history and culture with both hands. Each attempt at revision must be met with an equally vociferous defense of the truth or one day, that truth will disappear entirely.

Paul

***NEWSFLASH***

Congratulations President Obama. Mr. Obama has been named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. A humbled Barack Obama approached the microphone this morning and said he was surprised at the decision of the Nobel Committee adding that he did not deserve the honor. Finally, this man has said something we can agree on.

In a change of traditions, the Nobel Foundation awarded President Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". This effectively changed the requisites of this coveted award from the recipient’s accomplishments in the cause of peace to include those that simply wish really, really, really hard that we will all get along someday.

Mr. Obama may very well be coerced by his Generals, the Congress and the American people into committing the 40,000 troops that General McChrystal has requested in spite of his pre-election promises to bring the troops home. Unfortunately, he is finding that the reality of being Commander in Chief is very different than the wistful rhetoric that is allowed to spew from a candidate; especially a candidate that is a darling of the media. Hopefully the Nobel Foundation hasn’t confused his inability to take decisive military actions for an actual advocacy of peace; after all, he took a full four months to pick out a dog for his family so not reinforcing the troop levels in Afghanistan is not an act of peace as much as it is a display of inexperience.

To be fair, President Obama has had several accomplishments in the area of foreign relations. In the first nine months of his administration he has reneged on a crucial security agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic, straining relations within NATO. He publically snubbed the Prime Minister of Great Britain during the recent meetings of the UN General Assembly. He has insulted the Government of Israel by equating their defensive actions against terrorist organizations with an occupation of a sovereign land. He has angered China with the imposition of trade restrictions to protect his support within the labor union camps in the United States. All of this while his administration engaged in practices that have destabilized the United States economy and severely devalued the Dollar.

His most stellar progress in foreign relations is that he is the first American President to earn the accolades and respect of the worlds most vicious totalitarian dictators and socialist regimes. He has even made rogue nations like Iran so secure from the threat of American reprisal that they can now complete their nuclear program free of fear and without the costly distraction of having to spend enormous amounts of time and money guarding against attack.

Three other American Presidents have won the Nobel Peace Prize (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and James Carter). All three were liberal progressives that believed in confiscatory taxes and redistributive policies. Two of the three were weak and ineffectual leaders. Those must be the attributes that the Nobel Foundation finds desirous in American Presidents. We now have a President that combines progressive policies and heavy-handed taxes with weak and ineffectual leadership and that explains why Barack Obama received the award so early in his Presidency; because this is the America that the Nobel Foundation wants to see; an America weak in resolve, weak in leadership and weak in financial strength.