The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part 2

As described in Part 1, the Cloward-Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands, thereby pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. Cloward and Piven repeatedly cited Alinsky’s, Rules for Radicals, in all their work. Marxism advocates were taught to, “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” Never failing to remind their apprentices that, “…when pressed…human agencies inevitably fall short…the system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then is used to discredit it altogether.” The definitive goal: “… replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.”
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 Cloward and Piven’s 1966 article in The Nation. His followers invaded welfare offices across the United States — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law “entitled” them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley’s tactics, the New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, “There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests – and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones.”

These methods proved to be effective. 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 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) succeeded NWRO in the execution of the Cloward-Piven grand tactics of using the poor as cannon fodder to tear down the capitalist system. It was low-income, mostly black and Hispanic people, who were used by ACORN guerrillas to take subprime toxic mortgages.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new “voting rights movement,” which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spearheaded 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 a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James. The Chicago branch of Project Vote was a huge success in the 1992 election and was run by a 31 year old lawyer named Barack Obama.

All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping the voter rolls with “dead wood” — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus 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 systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of “racism” and “disenfranchisement,” and “direct action” (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America’s welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees wanted to overwhelm the nation’s understaffed and poorly policed electoral system.

Advertisements

Obama Snubs Norwegians

President Obama’s trip to Oslo, where he will be awarded his Nobel peace prize, could be just adding another on a growing list of countries who the current administration has insulted.

Norwegians are upset over his cutting short his visit which traditionally features three days of activities and ceremonies.

The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace center.

More importantly, he has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway, an event every prize winner from the Dalai Lama to Al Gore has attended.

According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.

News outlets across the Scandanavian region are calling Obama arrogant for slashing some of the prize winners’ traditional duties from his schedule. “Everybody wants to visit the Peace Center except Obama,” sniped the Norwegian daily Aftenposten, amid reports the president would snub his own exhibition at the Nobel Peace Center. “A bit arrogant—a bit bad,” proclaimed another Aftenposten headline.

“Of all the things he is cancelling, I think the worst is cancelling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she said. The the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet ran the headline, “Obama disses lunch with King Harald.”

The Norwegians should consider themselves in good company. The Obama administration has managed to snub the British, the French, the Germans, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Taiwanese and the Dalai Lama to name some on the list. They haven’t snubbed all of our historical friends yet, but they’ve only had eleven months with which to work!

Prior Private Sector Experience in Presidential Cabinets

The following chart is from a J.P. Morgan research report. It shows the prior private sector experience of the cabinet officials since 1900 that one might expect a president to turn to when seeking advice about helping the economy.

Prior Private Sector Experience

Research by Chief Investment Officer, JP Morgan

As unemployment continues to rise, this chart may be telling! When you have a “jobs summit” and don’t invite the representatives of businesses that create most of the jobs in the country, it is an example of why you should consider having someone who has actually hired someone for a job in a decision making postion in or around the White House.

Global Warming? Not So Fast

Computer hackers obtained more than 1,000 private e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities have been openly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

The authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated. Indeed, we are looking the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

One of the highly disturbing series of emails show how scientists have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws. There are emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

Some of the leaked documents show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their computer programs, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

Another shocking revelation of these documents is the way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work.

If Vice President Gore has made a statement condemning the actions of the scientists, some of whom shared his Nobel Peace Prize, it hasn’t been anywhere that I have seen. You have to remember that Al Gore, for all his zeal in wanting to save the planet, stands to make a ton of money in “green technology” if the world continues to follow his preaching. That is why, for him, “The debate is over.”

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, is calling on Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to conduct hearings on a possible conspiracy between some of the world’s most prominent climatologists to, among other things, manipulate data on so-called global warming.

“Science will guide us, period,” Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.), said in February “Science will guide our committee and we will have a robust debate on what that science says.” That was February.

Today, however, Sen. Boxer said that the recently released e-mails, showing scientists allegedly overstating the case for climate change, should be treated as a crime.

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,'” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

Where is the outrage in the American press? There was a time when a story like this would get more attention than a bloody carcass in a school of sharks. Now, unless you watch FOX or listen to talk radio or read the blogs, you only have been given a few details and most of that is slanted. The British and Canadian press coverage of the story is a lot more extensive than their American counterparts.

Where is the outrage in Washington? I cannot believe that ALL of our elected officials have been bought off by special interests with lots to gain by pursuing this policy of man made global warming. Is Sen. Inhofe the only one concerned?

Where is the outrage in the scientific community? By not rising up and denouncing these frauds, the remaining scientists, in all fields around the world stand to be tainted by this scam. There was a time when you could believe in science. Apparently, those times are over.

Instead of outrage, we find the administration and the Senate pushing ahead with Cap and Trade. The President still planning to attend the conference and has already announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the Conference on climate change in Copenhagen later this month.

I would suggest that, before we agree to spending $145 Trillion (yes, that’s what they are saying it will cost to “fix” the problem) and trashing a large portion of our economy, we might want to take a fresh look at the data being used to drive the decision making.

The reason the Progressives in charge won’t slow the progress, I suspect, is that the issue is not about a clean environment or climate change and it never has been. It was, and still is, about control and redistribution of wealth.

White House Gate Crashers

A couple of aspiring reality-TV stars from Northern Virginia crashed the White House’s state dinner last Tuesday night, penetrating layers of security with no invitation to mingle with the likes of Vice President Biden and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

While it would appear that the Secret Service is poised to take the hit for the apparent lapse in security, I’m not buying it. I suspect it would be a case of the Secret Service falling on their sword. Anyone who knows anything about how serious the Secret Service is about protecting the President and his family, knows that someone with “authority” would have had to have been involved in getting someone who is not on the list of invitees inside the compound. The White House is not some cheesy Chicago nightclub where you can just smile your way past those watching the front door or get your univited friends in with a wink and a nod. Nor should it be. When the investigation is completed, whoever that “person of authority” is should be fired without recourse regardless of their position.

Regardless of how you feel about this President politically, he is still our elected leader. None of us want him placed in a position of danger. If something had happened while this incident was taking place, it would have been devastating to a nation already divided to the point of near-conflict. Keep further in mind that if something were to happen to President Obama, Joe Biden would be in charge of the country, bad heart and all. On top of that, Nancy Pelosi would be the next in line of succession and that, my friends, scares me to the point of wanting to personally volunteer to help defend the President!

Who ever is doing the investigating, I hope they find out who allowed these greedy, reality TV star wanna-be’s, into the White House and fire them and while you are at it, ask the Attorney General if there are any charges that can be made against the two gate-crashers!