Non Socialist

THEIR Playbook

Did you ever ask yourself, “WHAT in hell is he doing??“  This is one theory.

Keeping in mind that “progressives” (Marxists) want power.  Power over anything they can grab.  Also keeping in mind that Obama has shown himself to be a Marxist, his goal is, bluntly put, to collapse this country.  Why?  Once he has the country in chaos, hungry shell-shocked people will take whatever solution he offers (Cloward-Piven Strategy, page 5). 

Using steps from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, he’s plowing ahead.  You will recognize many of them, both in the “Rules” and methods in the “Crisis Strategy” that follows. 

From Newsmax.com, Diane Alden, January 7, 2003:
 
Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ’60s radicals and revolutionaries.
 
Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ’60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.
 
“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
 

The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.

 … Alinsky and his followers counted on the guilt and shame of the white middle class to get what they wanted. In order to take over institutions and get power, the middle class had to be convinced that they were somehow lucky winners in “life’s lottery.”

 Alinsky’s radicals found a perfect vehicle for their destruction of the American system and more particularly for taking and maintaining power. That instrument was the Democratic Party.

 Obama is proud to have learned and taught Alinsky’s methods for community organizing.

 Originally published in 1971, Saul Alinsky wrote Rules for Radicals, a Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals.  Alinsky’s rules, which he calls “power tactics”, are listed.  Notes on his rules are in italics.  Pay particular attention to rules 5, 8, 11 and 13:

 RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

 Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

 Sound familiar?  Did you realize, before the current administration how EVIL were the corporations that have fueled the jobs in this country?  How EVIL are wealthy people? 

 Obama is doing his best to divide this country solidly with the “haves” being humbled and their power (wealth) being taken “for the good of all”.  As he taxes us more and more, the number of “haves” grows smaller every day.  Don’t fool yourself; YOU are one of the “haves”!

 RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

 When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.

 Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.  Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.

 You see an example of this taken and used against them accidentally in the “mobs” at the town hall meetings.  You notice that town hall meetings are being replaced by “one-on-one” events and “telephonic town halls”.  It is taking them from a situation outside their experience (angry people – especially conservatives – in large numbers) to a comfort zone.

 RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

 Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

 This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.

 RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

 Historically, Republicans hold the moral and ethical high ground.  So tempt them and then absolutely hammer them with the results, whether the reported issue is true or not. 

 Remember Mark Foley, Republican homosexual Congressman in Florida?  He was accused of sending inappropriate emails to young male pages, and on the say-so of one young man, who led us to believe he was 16 at the time, was hounded out of Congress.  Foley’s a Republican and they are supposed to be moral, so he must go, right?  After all the hoopla and his resignation, it was found out that the page Mark Foley was exchanging emails with was 19 and over the age of consent.  This would be lauded if Mark Foley were a Democrat, but he was politically killed by lies, the Republican book of rules, and much help from the liberal media.

 RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

 It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

 In line with this rule, smirking media talking heads are calling the Tea Party attendees “Tea Baggers” to ridicule them.  “Tea bagging” is a homosexual act.

 This is being used against them in the “Socialism” poster depicting Obama as the Joker.

 RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

 They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.  Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.

 Conservatives, are by nature, well… conservative.  You see them out in force now because they have come to recognize that their whole way of life is at risk.  You don’t/won’t see them laying in the streets to block traffic or handcuffing themselves to fences, they don’t enjoy the attention like the largely immature liberal constituency seem to do (look up “useful idiots” for more on this).  We generally don’t like to make a scene, that’s why Obama should be paying VERY close attention to these Tea Parties.  We aren’t having fun, the fact that they are so well attended means he’s got one pissed-off population!

 RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

 Don’t become old news.  Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.

 Ever notice how a “traditional protest” has something of a party atmosphere?  Got to have fun!

 RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

 Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

 Boy, are we seeing THIS one!  It’s something new every day!  We are fighting against them taking over our health care while they are working on food rules that need to be countered, cap and trade, and another (bigger) “stimulus” bill.

 Recall Rahm Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff) saying, “Never let a good crisis go to waste!”

 RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

 Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

 RULE 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

 This ties in with Rule 11.  He wants a violent outburst from … anyone… so he can do… something.  Martial law, perhaps?  Gun grab, perhaps?

 RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”

 Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

 THIS is what he’s trying to do with some of the push-push-push.  Union thugs beat up a man the other night.  They are pushing people around.  How long before someone defends themselves with a weapon?  THEN the union is the underdog.

 RULE 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

 Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.  Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power.

 We MUST learn to use this one against them!

 RULE 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

 Remember how they demonized President Bush?  Remember Joe the Plumber?  Sarah Palin?  The CIA?  Targets picked and polarized.

 They generally go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.  This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.

CLOWARD-PIVEN

 The “Crisis Strategy”

 

www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org

 Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

 First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

 Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk driving), 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 were abuzz over the so-called “crisis strategy” or “Cloward-Piven Strategy,” as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

 In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, 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 sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) 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.

 The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a “massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.”  Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be “a profound financial and political crisis” that would unleash “powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level.”

 Their article 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, leftwing 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 clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act.

 This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering 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 Cloward and Piven’s article. 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 effective.  ”The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley’s wildest dreams,” writes 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 mostly flush economic times. 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 end of welfare as we know it” — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton.

 Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. “This wasn’t an accident,” Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. “It wasn’t an atmospheric thing, it wasn’t supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare.”

 Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

 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 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 a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James.

 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 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 heretofore 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 whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some of the Left’s most ambitious campaigns.

April 7, 2009 – by Oleg Atbashian

While some of today’s comparisons between Obama and communist dictators may go over the top, the general direction of such thinking is not without merit: since they share a utopian goal of forced equality, it’s logical to expect that their methods may also converge at some point. To wit, recent actions from Obama reminded me of a ploy Stalin used on Western entrepreneurs, which in itself is an illustrative morality play contrasting the differences between socialism and capitalism.

“My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” Barack Obama told the CEOs of the world’s most powerful financial institutions on March 27, when they cited competition for talent in an international market as justification for paying higher salaries to their employees.

Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room, the bankers struggled to make themselves clear to the president, but he wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He interrupted them by saying, “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

To get the full flavor of the president’s implication we must remember that in Obama’s code language, the word “pitchforks” means “a vigorous campaign of threats and intimidation perpetrated by Obama-sponsored ACORN and union activists in conjunction with theatrical outrage from government officials, amplified by the complicit media, and coordinated from one political center, which has now moved to the White House.”

Accordingly, the words “public” and “the people” denote “an appearance of broad popular movement created by a small but highly organized band of professional pitchfork operators (ACORN) who rely on the government funding and the media’s eagerness to present their deliberately planned actions and pre-fabricated messages as heartfelt and spontaneous.”

In compliance with Orwellian logic, Obama’s “Newspeak” not only redefines existing meanings, it also abolishes ranges of “Oldspeak” meanings such as property, markets, competition, capitalism, political opposition, and the rule of law. The latter is perhaps the most important ingredient missing in his new “pitchfork” formula, signaling that law is now being replaced with mob rule.

In a balanced society, an angry mob is never a part of the equation. But if the goal is to throw a capitalist society off balance in order to change it, an angry mob is the ticket. Anger is known to be the easiest and the most effective tool of crowd manipulation. Angry mobs cancel out the rule of law. Infusing anger into a community and turning it into an angry mob, canceling out the rule of law, and changing the balance in a society — this is what community organizers do for a living.

It was often pointed out during the election that Obama lacked management experience. While having a president with no experience is bad, it’s not nearly as bad as having a president with experience as a community organizer.

Community organizers were instrumental in forcing banks to give subprime loans to unqualified minority borrowers by using the “pitchforks” tactics — protesting in front of the banks, camping on the lawns of the bankers’ family houses, intimidating families, and suing  in courts. After the bankers were sufficiently roughed up, a community organizer would show up at their office to “negotiate” the bank’s surrender in the form of bad loans and money for community organizations that pay community organizers for their “services.”

 

Squeezed between the “pitchforks” and the government (see Community Reinvestment Act ), the banks survived by releasing the accumulated toxic assets to the rest of the financial system, which over the years poisoned the entire world economy. Now that the crisis has propelled a former “pitchfork operator” into power, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the new organizer in chief would try to “heal” the economy how he knows best: by continuing to squeeze businesses between the “pitchforks” and the government — a tactic that had caused the disease in the first place. Only now he is doing it on a global scale.

Once a community organizer gains control of the media and the government, the next logical step is to turn the entire nation into a mob and set them against businesses, while offering the latter government “protection.” The subsequent takeover of the economy leaves the future society reduced to the two basic elements: an authoritarian government and a compliant mob. This may be an ideal arrangement for a community organizer, but it’s a direct opposite of what the Founding Fathers had intended.

Most Americans will probably associate this trend with the protection racket that was rampant in Chicago in the 1930s. It follows the same pattern: the mob, in conjunction with the unions, would organize strikes and protests, do physical damage, and intimidate business owners. Then a mob representative would meet with the owner and offer “protection” by saying “I’m the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Curiously enough, at about the same time, a similar drama was unfolding halfway across the world in the Eastern Siberia — only this time the role of the mob was played by a government that claimed to act in the interests of the workers. And while the mobsters were motivated by greed and used the workers simply to milk the capitalists, a workers’ government, motivated by the common good morality, used the workers for something much more sinister and immoral.

After the Communists nationalized Siberian gold mines, the government’s incompetence and lack of incentives sent gold production into a decline. Many of the managers and engineers had fled abroad; the foreign-made mining equipment lay in ruins. But the country badly needed gold to finance industrialization and prepare for war with Western capitalism.

The popular sentiment, whipped up by the party-controlled media, was that “heads must roll.” Failing to deliver the required quotas, the remaining managers and engineers were declared enemies of the people and either executed or sent to hard labor camps. That didn’t help; the production continued to drop.

That’s when Nikolai Bukharin, a former community organizer in charge of industrial development, came up with an idea to infuse some capitalism and lease Siberian mines to British mining companies. The plan was approved by Stalin.

The lease terms were extremely favorable; before long British capitalist exploiters arrived at a few Siberian locations. They brought new equipment, trained the local workers, and quickly revived the industry. But as soon as things began to run smoothly, local unions organized strikes at all British-run mines, protesting exploitation and demanding a significant pay raise.

The strike sounded absurd as the miners’ wages and living conditions by then were among the best in the country. The foreign management didn’t realize, of course, that the strike had been secretly ordered by the party’s central committee as part of Bukharin’s clever scheme. The unions wouldn’t dare defy the party. The workers simply did what they had been ordered to do.

The British gave in and raised the wages. But a few weeks later another strike broke out, with more picketing and demonstrations, as the unions demanded another significant raise and improvement of living conditions. The British gave in again. After yet another strike the Siberian miners already had a higher living standard than any of their Western counterparts, while the mining operation was becoming barely profitable. When the next anti-exploitation strike broke out, the capitalists cried to the Soviet government for help.

Bukharin, on behalf of the party and the government, answered that he had no power over the unions. This was not a capitalist country where governments oppressed their workers. This was a workers’ state, ruled by the workers who were getting angry at capitalist exploitation, and the government had to obey their will. Long story short, and not necessarily in these words, the gist of the message was that the Brits only had Stalin’s mercy standing between them and the pitchforks, and they better not push it.

Finally the Brits fathomed the depth of the hole they’d dug themselves into. There was nothing else they could do except run away from the threat of the pitchforks as fast as they could. Shipping back the equipment would only increase their losses, so they left the machinery behind.

As a result, the Soviet government got new working equipment, trained workers, and well-organized production — all free of charge. None of the captains of socialist industry lost any sleep; it was done for the common good of the workers, and so the end justified the means. According to a witness account, members of the party’s central committee, including Stalin, laughed hysterically every time Bukharin retold the story of how the workers’ state fooled Western capitalism.

But the joke really was on the workers. As soon as the British left, the mines were taken over by the state, the wages dropped to the national average, and the usual misery ensued. The unions had done their job; there were no more strikes. Who would dare protest the party that acted in the interests of the workers? No one was foolish enough to stick his head into that noose and be declared enemy of the people. And since everyone acted smart and in the interests of the common good, the industry quickly declined to the pre-capitalist level.

In 1937, Bukharin himself was declared an enemy of the people and, after a show trial, executed on unrelated charges. The allegations against him were as bogus and far-fetched as the very system he had helped to create — and of which he later became a victim. The gold-mining episode was perhaps one of the most innocent schemes he conjured in the interests of the common good.

In the absence of economic incentives, the stagnant and unproductive industries could only be run by threats and intimidation. Those who think that the Soviet system was an aberration of socialism, please consider that it had been consistent with the principles of equality and the common good. Stalin’s reign of terror was merely an inevitable end result of a collectivist utopian theory that contradicted human nature, vilifying people for “greed” and “selfishness,” which were mere manifestations of their individuality, and punishing the desire to be free from state-run slavery.

It appears that the ultimate manifestation of the “common good” principle is an absolute power of the state. Stalinists associated the idea of “socialism with a human face” with moral confusion and ideological corruption. At least the henchmen were consistent in their beliefs.

As post-Stalin liberal reforms softened the totalitarian system, they also made it more dysfunctional. With the fear of repressions withering away, the economy slowed down to a halt. And just as the last remaining fear was gone in the years of Perestroika, the country fell apart. This was a logical conclusion of an attempt to build a “workers’ paradise” based on “progressive” collectivist morality, which turned workers into slaves and corrupted the society to such an extent that it required a partial return of totalitarian rule by Putin in order to rein in organized crime.

But American “progressives” seem to be unable to learn from other people’s mistakes, even if the former KGB officer Vladimir Putin himself is asking Obama to take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence.”

I don’t often agree with Putin, but when he’s right, he’s right . “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,” he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. “In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-the-pitchfork-operator-a-remake-of-the-soviet-classic/

Family Security Matters ^ | March 23, 2009 | Chris Carter

Members of Congress heard testimony against the activist group ACORN on Thursday, exposing the group’s illegal activity and mafia-style tactics.

Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh appeared before the a House Judiciary subcommittee alleging that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has violated campaign finance and tax laws in addition to their protest-for-hire and coerced donations. The source of the accusations was from the sworn testimony of ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief, who was a clerk for ACORN’s sister organization called Project Vote.

MonCrief, a Democrat and Obama supporter, testified last year that Barack Obama’s campaign gave Project Vote a "donor list" of people who had contributed the maximum amount allowed by federal law. According to Heidelbaugh’s testimony, the donors were to be targeted to donate to ACORN’s "Get Out the Vote" efforts and finance voter registration drives.

Heidelbaugh revealed in her testimony that there is virtually no separation between ACORN and Project Vote, as employees working for one group would perform work for the other.

(Excerpt) Read more at familysecuritymatters.org …

Fannie Mae CEO calling Obama and the Dems the “Family” and “Conscience” of Fannie Mae.

EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration’s “BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama’s tie to all of it!!!

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Osama’s direct involvement with ACORN written in there own words. Read the Attached PDF file for more information on ACORN.

Toni Foulkes is a Chicago ACORN leader and a member of ACORN’s National Association Board.

H/T to Stanley Kurtz. He cited the article in an 8 October column, but did not provide a link.  Case Study

This article debunks any minimization of Obama involvement with ACORN and other radical elements of Chicago politics…with their own words.

House Republican Leader John Boehner Dear fellow conservative, I’m fighting to end ALL federal funding for ACORN and I need your help. You know ACORN – the leftwing outfit that uses our tax dollars to fuel a radical agenda aimed at subverting our elections process and promoting housing policies that have brought our economy to the brink. Together we can put a stop to taxpayer funding of this corrupt organization. Voters need to know about the nexus between ACORN, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and top Democrats including Senator Barack Obama. ACORN and Congressional Democrats pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – the heavily-regulated, taxpayer-backed mortgage giants – to lower their accounting standards, encouraging banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Alan Greenspan warned that this scheme was “placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.” Republicans warned of the dangers posed by the excesses Fannie and Freddie, and advocated reform. But every step of the way, Barack Obama and his allies – top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – thwarted reform and funneled tens of millions of tax dollars to ACORN. And here we are today – families and small businesses struggling, seniors 401(k)s in trouble, and our economy teetering on the edge. It is time to cut off ACORN before it grows even more destructive. I have to have your help. Please make a generous contribution to my campaign right now by clicking on this secure link. By making a donation, you’re taking a stand against ACORN and its Democrat benefactors in Congress. You’re directly arming me with the resources I need to spread the word about ACORN. Please join me in putting an end to ACORN’s funding by making an online contribution of $25, $50 or even $100 that will help me get our message out. Together we can cut off ACORN and deliver real, pro-growth economic reforms that create new jobs, lower energy costs, and allow our employers to compete. Together we can fix a broken Washington. Sincerely, John Boehner (R-OH) P.S. The November 4th election is right around the corner. That’s why your immediate support is so crucial. Please help me in stopping funding for ACORN FUNDING now with a generous contribution to help pull us through Election Day. Thanks again.     Paid for by the Friends of John Boehner   Not published at government expense

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 8/11/2008 7:30:00 AM
OneNewsNow.com

There’s more to the housing bailout measure than meets the eye, says a Minnesota lawmaker. She contends that members of Congress need to be called back to Washington to reverse the measure that, among other things, sends millions of taxpayer dollars to a radical illegal immigration advocacy group.

The housing package signed into law by President Bush extends an unlimited line of credit to troubled mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and rescues homeowners near or in foreclosure. The measure also increases the federal debt limit by another $800 billion — and sends millions of dollars in aid to La Raza and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
 
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, says she finds it “unconscionable” that the legislation included funding for the two groups, which serve as political action arms of the Democratic Party.
 
“At the same time that the American taxpayer was being asked to bail these companies out, Barney Frank, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, instituted a sort of tax on Freddie and Fannie, and that tax goes into what’s called an affordable housing trust fund,” explains Bachmann. “It’s a really a taxpayer-subsidized housing fund, but that money will go to organizations like La Raza and…ACORN.” Both groups — “particularly ACORN,” says Bachmann — have been found to be involved in “activities where they have perpetrated voter fraud,” she contends.

excerpt from http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=210216