Progressives, Liberals, and now Progressive Again

Woodrow Wilson, America’s 28th president, rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution’s system of the separation of powers. This philosophy is known as Progressivism.

“All that progressives ask or desire,” wrote Woodrow Wilson, “is permission — in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

John Dewey and his followers, argued that we needed a broader conception of liberty than the one maintained by laissez-faire negative-rights libertarians. The key idea can be summed up in a quote from Anatole France: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.” Basically, the idea is that the freedom to starve because you have no food is not a meaningful freedom at all, because it does not maximize your autonomy or allow your to realize your potential, which were important goals in classical liberalism.

Thus Dewey argued that we should recognize positive liberty as well as negative liberty, meaning that e.g. just as we ought to recognize a right to live without someone killing you, we similarly ought to recognize a right to live without dying due to lack of food. Thus American Progressives advocates that the government should play some role in the economy in order to give people autonomy and enable them to pursue their own happiness, along the lines of the “responsiveness” part of the Progressive philosophy. Thus Americans liberals still try to achieve the goals of classical liberalism, but they sometimes do it through Progressive means.

The Progressives rejected God given rights as naive and unhistorical. In their view, human beings are not born free. John Dewey, the most thoughtful of the Progressives, wrote that freedom is not “something that individuals have as a ready-made possession.” It is “something to be achieved.” In this view, freedom is not a gift of God or nature. It is a product of human making, a gift of the state. Man is a product of his own history, through which he collectively creates himself. He is a social construct. Since human beings are not naturally free, there can be no natural rights or natural law. Therefore, Dewey also writes, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.”

The Progressive presidents advocated a very interventionist foreign policy, since they were motivated by the desire to help people as much as possible, even people abroad. Liberals still share some of this impulse, and are willing to support limited American military intervention in circumstances of extreme humanitarian crisis. But mostly their foreign policy views were taken from classical liberalism, so they they’re antiwar for the most part.

Progressive are totally silent about their widespread support for the theory and practice of eugenics. As Princeton University economist Tim Leonard has chronicled, “eugenic thought deeply influenced the Progressive Era transformation of the state’s relationship to the American economy.” Despite the fact that this monograph favorably cites progressive hero Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes for his famous dissent in the economic liberty case Lochner v. New York (1905), the authors make no mention of Holmes’ notorious majority decision in Buck v. Bell, where Holmes and his colleagues (including Louis Brandeis) upheld the forced sterilization of those who “sap the strength of the State.”

Today it is the Progressive that laud Margaret Sanger and champing the slaughter of babies, which, btw the way are mostly black, Let’s read a few quotes:

“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children… [Women must have the right] to live … to love… to be lazy … to be an unmarried mother … to create… to destroy… The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order… The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

No, that was not taken from Hitler. That’s a quotation from the patron saint of the feminists and Hillary Clinton. And the above words were not a one-off moment of insanity. There’s more where those horrendous thoughts came from.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

“Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108)

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

In any case, when contemporary liberals call themselves progressive, they’re hearkening back to their intellectual predecessors. The Progressives hijacked the Democrat Party early in the 20th Century, as they were doing it they stopped calling themselves Progressive and started referring to themselves a Liberals. We can thank Hilary for the label coming back out in the open, she said that she was proud To call herself a Progressive.

Barry Goldwater’s War Against The Religious Right

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Barry Goldwater’s attack on the Religious Right.  This was brought to my attention by a Facebook friend, Christopher Lee Crowell, the other day in a discussion on religion’s role in the political process.  Let me point out the perspective from which I will be responding.  I consider myself a Christian Libertarian Constitutionalist, that is I believe that I am a person who believe that Jesus is my Savior God, believes that the less government is the best government, and that the Constitution as it was meant by its framer is the Law of the Land.  Christopher, on the other hand, is an atheist who, as far as I can tell subscribes to the living constitution concept.

One caveat, I voted Goldwater in 1964, but I did not pay as much attention back then as I do now, even though I believe that our country would have been much better off had he won instead of Johnson.

I will be adding my comment/rebuttals in red.

A note about the author D. Foster, Jr., a leftwing radical whose legitimacy is based solely on the fact that he is the braggadocios holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science from Missouri University of Science and Technology and is….surprise…… a teacher, in Pennsylvania and Missouri.


Barry Goldwater’s War Against The Religious Right

Known as ‘Mr. Conservative,’ Barry Goldwater embodied conservative values throughout his service as a Senator from Arizona, but he would oppose much of what conservatives have been doing today. Present day conservatives take many of their marching orders from the Christian right, also known as social conservatives, but Barry Goldwater resoundingly rejected them as extremists who disgrace the word ‘conservatism.’ Like present day conservatives, Goldwater supported the free market, but as much as he supported business, he rejected those who pollute the environment. Many conservatives today claim Barry Goldwater as one of their own, so it may surprise them to know that he rejected many of their present day core values. While maybe the concept, such as free markets and conservatives remand the same, how they are implemented is a different story. If Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, then trying to obtain the goals of the Christian right can be viewed as a conservative goal in spite of Goldwater’s opinion, as many of the conservative of his day did.

Barry Goldwater rose to prominence as a man of deep conservative convictions. Liberals called him an extremist (which he was in his time) and his often colorful and controversial rhetoric cost him the Presidency in 1964. But Goldwater, as controversial as he was back then, also had the guts to call out his own party. For example, ‘Mr. Conservative’ rejected the Christian right-wing element of the party. As a firm believer in personal liberty, he saw their views as a violation of personal privacy and individual liberties. In fact, he believed in this creed so much that he voted to uphold legalized abortion and supported gay rights. He also rejected the use of God in political discourse and refused to vote in Congress the way the religious right wanted him to. Here is a portion of what Goldwater had to say about the religious right. A person’s personal liberty does not give them the liberty to kill another person, be it a baby or an old man dying on a sidewalk.  He had the right to reject the use of God in his political discourse, but not in others.  

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. On religious issues there can be little or no compromise, true for the personal, but not true for a deliberating body of legislators. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than God, true only for the believers, and true only for the idea being presented. That they are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent, is that not what every Special Interest Group does?  Why should the  Christian right be excluded because they are Christians who are trying to influence the course of our government both now and then.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?  But it is just fine for him to dictate his moral beliefs to them, from where comes his claim to a higher morality to preach to them?  Of course he, and people like him are free to express their opinions as to how it should be, and how others should behave, but that freedom is extended to those to whom he is preaching against.

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” What threat could/did they make other that to persuade people not to vote for him?  Is that not covered in the First Amendment?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater refused to march lockstep with the Christian right as conservatives do today. The Republican Party of today has surrendered to the Christian right and ignored the real issues facing the country as a result. Goldwater knew how dangerous this would be. As was his right then as it is the right of of conservatives that do so today.  Dissagreing with that right does not take the right away.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” And just how did this manifest itself?  With Obama election?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater was a strong supporter of separation of church and state and was a passionate advocate for religious freedom. He would not support the Christian right’s crusade against non-Christian religions. Jefferson’s separation of church and state was just a guarantee that the government would neither establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise their of. It was not a prohibition of people to use their religious beliefs as a guiding light in the political process. 

“Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.”  Sadly for Goldwater and people of his ilk many decent people recognize that religion has as place in public policy as anyone else’s opinion.
~Barry Goldwater

It might surprise you to know that Goldwater was a supporter of gay rights and rejected ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ As a man devoted to personal liberty, Goldwater believed that consenting adults are free to marry whomever they please. And as a strong ally of those in the military, Goldwater would be smiling about the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”
~Barry Goldwater

“It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.”
~Barry Goldwater

“You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”  I believe that incorporation of openly queers will prove to be a big mistake.  The incidents of male on male rape in the military is exploding, that was something you never had in the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ere or before. 
~Barry Goldwater

Here’s how the debate over military sexual assault has unfolded thus far: Bold female leaders spoke out, smart male allies stood behind them, clueless conservative men started mansplaining the issue, and right-wing media went full misogynist. Because of this, it’s easy to imagine that military sexual assault is mainly a problem of men versus (or attacking) women, but as James Dao in the New York Times explains, in fact, the majority of sexual assault in the military is male-on-male crime.

Goldwater would be horrified by the current war against gay Americans being waged by the Republican Party and would have flatly denounced the conservative audience who booed the gay soldier and would have damned the Republican candidates who failed to jump to his defense during one of the GOP Debates. It should also be noted that Goldwater supported desegregation. As a Colonel he founded the Arizona Air National Guard, and he desegregated it two years before the rest of the US military. Goldwater was instrumental in pushing the Pentagon to support desegregation of the armed services. This would clearly make Goldwater enemy number one in the conservative south.  If that war ever existed, it was lost in the courts.

Conservatives today are expected to oppose abortion at any cost. Abortion are murders. In fact, Republicans have been passing anti-abortion laws for the last three years in an effort to curb women’s rights, personal privacy, and individual liberty., including over 90 anti-abortion bills that have been passed in 2012 alone. Barry Goldwater would be absolutely disgusted with this effort and would call conservatives a disgrace to the Constitution. I bless them for it.

“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, the argument is over what is traditional and how the social institutions should be retained. Goldwater had a different idea than the other conservative, to believe that it is murder to kill an unborn child is conservative, that was the law until Roe v. Wade.  It is apparent to me that Goldwater had lost his conservative roots when he wrote this.

It’s clear that Goldwater supported Roe v. Wade. He consistently voted to uphold abortion rights. He made this decision because of his personal conviction that every woman has the right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. As an American, Goldwater put the Constitution before the Bible. That’s something that conservatives fail to do today. So sad that he lost his way.

There’s something else that conservatives support today that Barry Goldwater would flatly reject. Conservatives have an unshakable belief in the free market system, as did Goldwater. But conservatives believe that corporations should be allowed to pollute the environment as they wish, which is something Goldwater wouldn’t support at all. To put it bluntly, Goldwater would support the Koch brothers and their right to do business, but he would take them to the woodshed for willfully destroying the environment.  Conservatives never supported pollution, it was Nixon who created the EPA. In 1969 halt all dumping in the Great Lakes.  In 1970 he created cabinet-level Council on Environmental Quality. Then in 1970-72: he created EPA which passed Clean Air Act.

“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.” As do all Conservatives.
~Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater was a huge environmental advocate. He sincerely believed that we needed to protect our world. Republicans in Congress have proposed a plan that would eliminate over 100 years of environmental regulations including allowing mining operations in the Grand Canyon. Barry Goldwater would be furious with this plan. So what?

“Well, once you’ve been in the Canyon and once you’ve sort of fallen in love with it, it never ends…it’s always been a fascinating place to me, in fact I’ve often said that if I ever had a mistress it would be the Grand Canyon.” Werd.
~Barry Goldwater

Even Barry Goldwater’s religion was tied to the environment.

“My mother took us to services at the Episcopal church. Yet she always said that God was not just inside the four walls of a house of worship, but everywhere — in the rising sun over Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, a splash of water along the nearby Salt or Verde rivers, or clouds driving over the Estrella Mountains, south of downtown. I’ve always thought of God in those terms.”  So why should his religion have any more say in government that Christians?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater certainly had a passion for protecting the environment. He would support the Environmental Protection Agency and clean energy initiatives. He, more than any conservative today, understood that we only have one planet and that it is our duty to clean it up and protect it. Pure propaganda. And as much as Goldwater wanted to lower the tax rates, he never intended for the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans. You have to remember that when Goldwater was fighting for lower taxes, the top tax rate in America was 91%. In the 1980s, Goldwater criticized Reagan’s “parade of millionaires.” He also supported American jobs and competition. He would be horrified to see how corporations have choked out competition in America and that those same corporations outsource millions of jobs overseas. Goldwater always stood by middle class Americans. Goldwater also opposed corporate money in politics which means he would certainly have rejected the Citizens United decision. “… the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans.” And they never did. Today the top 10 percent of earners paid 68 percent of the federal Income Tax collected

The latest year I could Find:

  • In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes.
  • Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year.
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent.
  • In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
  • The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).

Clearly, Goldwater isn’t the pillar of conservatism the Republicans make him out to be. In fact, Goldwater was so distressed about the Christian right takeover of the Republican Party, that he began referring to himself as a liberal. In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” Other than him running against Johnson I do not recall his being talked about much.

Speaking of liberals, Goldwater believed they were a valuable part of the political system. Rather than vilify liberals like conservatives do on a daily basis today, Goldwater once wrote an article for the National Review “affirming that he [was] not against liberals, that liberals are needed as a counterweight to conservatism.” In other words, Goldwater would be completely against the present day conservative calls to destroy liberalism and the people who embody it. He would also be against conservative claims that liberals are socialists because he never would have stooped that low. Goldwater never supported the John Birch Society anti-communist obsession and he never once accused a fellow American of being a communist or socialist and would denounce Republicans for calling President Obama one. I strongly believe that Goldwater would have voted for President Obama had he been alive in 2008 like two of his granddaughters did. He was wrong to not oppose the Progressives of his day, they do not want to work with a Constitutional Republic, they want to rebuild America in the Communist mode.

We all know Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as Christian right-wing fanatics who have a stranglehold over the Republican Party. But Barry Goldwater never ever subscribed to their thirst to combine God and government. He considered such a movement an abomination and despised both Falwell and Robertson to the core. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, Fanatics is as you define them, I did not see Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson fanatics, they were loyal Americans working within the political frameworks, not trying to take it over serendipity like the Progressives have been doing for years.

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned”, Goldwater retorted: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”  What makes him the judge of what a good Christian is or should be other than the fact that progressives agree with it?

These two examples clearly show how much Goldwater disapproved of the growing influence of the Christian Right. Goldwater went even further than that, however. A few years before his death he went so far as to address the unprincipled establishment Republicans, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”  I hope that they obliged him.  It was his idea of what the Republican Party should be that was hurt, not the Party.  There are those today that feel the same Trump, that he will destroy the Republican Party but he want, he will make it stronger with his Practical  Conservationism.

Barry Goldwater was a truer and more honorable conservative than the current crop of Republicans, who have allowed social conservative views, which he strongly opposed, to become the dominant and defining philosophy of the conservative movement. Conservatives never heeded Goldwater’s warning. They allowed the Christian right to take over the party and now they have become so powerful that even traditional conservatives do the bidding of the religious right on command. Barry Goldwater had the courage to stand up to these extremists and made his decisions in the Senate according to what he thought best for America as a whole. He defended religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and saw the Christian right as a major threat to that freedom. You mean that his were ideas that you agreed with.

It is time for conservatives to wake up and realize what the Christian right has done to the Republican Party and America. They must honor true conservatism and banish the religious right from their movement before their doctrine of hatred and division destroys the nation Goldwater loved. Goldwater’s views regarding the economy and Social Security are rather extreme but that’s why he believed in compromising. His willingness to stand against the extremists in his own party and his willingness to compromise makes him a better person and politician than any conservative today. His views were far tamer than those of present day conservatives. Goldwater had a mind of his own and he never allowed people to brainwash him or control him. It is a testament to the great character this man possessed. Barry Goldwater should be admired for his strength to reject extremists, his love of the American people, and his patriotism. But Republicans have moved so far to the right that even Barry Goldwater would be considered a hard-core liberal. Conservatives like Goldwater would be wise to follow his example and take back their party in his name before the extremists tear the fabric of America asunder.

Foster calling for conservatives to wake up is laughable on it face, he has no desire for Conservationism to trump, he is a stalking horse trying to get close enough to sway some uninformed, and give ammo to progressives to hit the Republican Party with.

Sponsored Content:

Pope Says Concern for Poor Is Gospel, Not Communism

Headlines this morning:

Pope Says Concern for Poor Is Gospel, Not Communism
Pope calls for more market regulation, denies he is Marxist:”

I have to agree with him on the first, concern is not Communism, nor is asking the people to give with a free, generous heart Communism. But when you use the force of government, like the second headline implies, to take from those who have to give to those who have not is a close kin of Communism.

Now to step off on a tangent. There are three major economic systems at play in the world today: Communism, Fascism, and Capitalism. The Solstice system are a mix of Communism and Capitalism, and is referred to as a mixed economy.

In a Communist system manufacturing, labor, and distribution. wealth creation and dispersal, is owned by the government. The government decides what is to be produced, who will produce it, and who will get it.

In a Fascist system individuals are allowed to own the means of production, but the government dictates what will be produced, the price at which it must be sold, and where it can be sold. The US economy has been creeping into a Fascist system for a long time now.

In a Capitalistic system individuals own the means of productions, set the price of what is produce using market forces, and decide the means of distribution via retail or direct marketing. The market, not government, dictates what will be produced, where it will be sold, and at what price. The Capitalistic system has raised more people out of poverty than any other economic system that has be devised by man.

Capitalism can be perverted into what is know as “Crony Capitalism” which is where certain industries get into bed with the government to rig the rules in their favor. Three example come to mind today, and that is the Solar, Wind and Ethanol industries none of whom could exist at their current scale without government force.

How They Are Getting The Children Here, By Kidnapping?

Looking for the source of the runaway children coming across out birder I came across this:

CHILD THEFT: the real story behind the immigrant children

Jim Stone, July 8 2014

 Child Thieves are simply using a lie about trains to provide cover for the fact that they are actually stealing children from Central America and shipping them up to the U.S.A  on white buses and on regular air flights to trigger a social disaster.

The only children coming up are stolen and sent up by people operating to destroy America. Mothers are warning the children to stay away from white women who are working for charities and other so called “outreach programs” because once the children get involved with these people, they vanish.

There are no children on the trains AT ALL, no children walking the roads (I just spent 3,000 KM riding all the roads on a motorcycle and never saw a single child walking the roads, no packed rest areas, NOTHING. So if they are not on the trains, and nowhere to be seen on the roads, yet they are vanishing there is ONE ANSWER and it came directly from someone in Nicaragua:

An Ex-pat in Nicaragua blows the story wide open:

“During this research, I’ve been asking expats how ‘gringos’ are treated and a woman from Canada who is in Managua, Nicaragua replied back by email and said that this past 6 months or so, Nicaraguan mothers have been warning their kids to stay away from gringos, especially women and ESPECIALLY ones claiming to work for NGO’s or missionary types. Apparently, there have been a lot of “runaways” and young pregnant teens going missing and the locals there are ‘very suspicious’ that they’re being taken by these people. After thinking about it, I believe this would be a perfect plan – go to Central American countries, set up orgs to help children, once the kids are under their legal guardianship, they can then take them out of the countries and ship them to the US.”

This, in a single statement, says it all: The children are not leaving Central America on trains, they are being taken and shipped up to America by so-called “relief workers” who steal them and put them on buses and have them shipped directly up to America. There are no “trains of death” or huge waves of people walking the Mexican countryside, and Arturo himself, in the video, clearly states that the police would not tolerate having them on trains, so such an exodus is impossible.

The video I posted yesterday seems to have been taken over a year ago, as were the two following videos, Rx:

Why are these being presented as occurring today?  Why is no one going down into Central America and asking the children’s parents why they are allowing their kids to go off on such a trip along?

Here is the requirements Mexico puts upon children coming into Mexico:

Every traveler arriving in Mexico by air, regardless of age, is required to present a valid passport for entry into the country. Children who are not Mexican citizens are not required by the Mexican authorities to present any other documentation. Mexican citizens (including dual citizens of other countries) who are under 18 years of age and traveling unaccompanied by at least one parent will need to present proof of the parents’ authorization to travel. The authorization from the parents (required by law for Mexican nationals only) must be translated into Spanish and legalized by the Mexican embassy in the country where the document was issued.   Does my child need a passport to travel to Mexico?

Looking for who might be helping Obama in this stage of his implementation of Cloward and Piven’s Strategy  I found this:

Are you curious who has been facilitating the transport of illegal alien children throughout the country? Look no more… meet La Raza connected Southwest Key Programs. This organization is the pipeline for the children into US refugee camps and homes across the nation. They provide immigrant youth shelters. It is a well-oiled machine that was set up to educate and reintegrate youth into American society. They also provide training for jobs. And baby, they are hiring.

ACORN For Illegal Aliens – Meet The Southwest Key Programs

CNN and the rest of the Progressive Medea are adding and abetting, here is an example:

Banfield was speaking with the spokesperson for a group offering pro bono legal services to the hundreds of children from Central America seeking to enter the United States. After wrapping the interview, Banfield has words for people who are protesting how the government is handling the situation.

“For any you out there about to tweet me saying that I think immigration is just fine, and they should all be let over the border, stop right there. That’s not what this is about. If you’ve ever been in a war zone, and I have, and I have seen refugees pouring over borders, half their families murdered, the other half tortured, they’re running for their lives, many of them women and children, it is devastating. It’s devastating. And God help if you’re ever in need of help and you show up and there’s a bus telling you to get out. This is America. Just read what we’re about. Just, just read.”

Liberal website The Daily Banter first posted the story, offering uncritical applause. It was a reaction predicted on The O’Reilly Factor last night, when Rep. Louie Gohmert expressed his anger over liberals claiming the sole mantle of compassion in this situation.

CNN Anchor Unleashes Tirade Over People Protesting Buses of Illegal Immigrants

Be safe.

Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven’s Strategy

I have copied and posted the below article to educate my readers on the strategy that is directing the Progressive both inside and outside of our government today.  In future  post I will refer back to this post to emphasize or illustrate that current post.  I believe this to be a fair use exercise permissible without the copyright holder’s permission.


Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 with this article:


                            The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty


The theory here, to force change through chaos, was among the most provocative of the 1960s.

From the Monday, May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation

How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive. This gulf is not recognized in a society that is wholly and self-righteously oriented toward getting people off the welfare rolls. It is widely known, for example, that nearly 8 million persons (half of them white) now subsist on welfare, but it is not generally known that for every person on the rolls at least one more probably meets existing criteria of eligibility but is not obtaining assistance.

The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls.

The distribution of public assistance has been a local and state responsibility, and that accounts in large part for the abysmal character of welfare practices. Despite the growing involvement of federal agencies in supervisory and reimbursement arrangements, state and local community forces are still decisive. The poor are most visible and proximate in the local community; antagonism toward them (and toward the agencies which are implicated with them) has always, therefore, been more intense locally than at the federal level. In recent years, local communities have increasingly felt class and ethnic friction generated by competition for neighborhoods, schools, jobs and political power. Public welfare systems are under the constant stress of conflict and opposition, made only sharper by the rising costs to localities of public aid. And, to accommodate this pressure, welfare practice everywhere has become more restrictive than welfare statute; much of the time it verges on lawlessness. Thus, public welfare systems try to keep their budgets down and their rolls low by failing to inform people of the rights available to them; by intimidating and shaming them to the degree that they are reluctant either to apply or to press claims, and by arbitrarily denying benefits to those who are eligible.

A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.

The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income–will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today’s poor. For example, one-third of the 35 million poor Americans are in families headed by females; these heads of family cannot be aided appreciably by job retraining, higher minimum wages, accelerated rates of economic growth, or employment in public works projects. Nor can the 5 million aged who are poor, nor those whose poverty results from the ill health of the wage earner. Programs to enhance individual mobility will chiefly benefit the very young, if not the as yet unborn. Individual mobility is no answer to the question of how to abolish the massive problem of poverty now.

It has never been the full answer. If many people in the past have found their way up from poverty by the path of individual mobility, many others have taken a different route. Organized labor stands out as a major example. Although many American workers never yielded their dreams of individual achievement, they accepted and practiced the principle that each can benefit only as the status of workers as a whole is elevated. They bargained for collective mobility, not for individual mobility; to promote their fortunes in the aggregate, not to promote the prospects of one worker over another. And if each finally found himself in the same relative economic relationship to his fellows as when he began, it was nevertheless clear that all were infinitely better off. That fact has sustained the labor movement in the face of a counter pull from the ideal of individual achievement.

But many of the contemporary poor will not rise from poverty by organizing to bargain collectively. They either are not in the labor force or are In such marginal and dispersed occupations (e.g., domestic servants) that it is extremely difficult to organize them. Compared with other groups, then, many of today’s poor cannot secure a redistribution of income by organizing within the institution of private enterprise. A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.

Several ways have been proposed for redistributing income through the federal government. It is not our purpose here to assess the relative merits of these plans, which are still undergoing debate and clarification. Whatever mechanism is eventually adopted, however, it must include certain features if it is not merely to perpetuate in a new guise the present evils of the public welfare system.

First, adequate levels of income must be assured. (Public welfare levels are astonishingly low; indeed, states typically define a “minimum” standard of living and then grant only a percentage of it, so that families are held well below what the government itself officially defines as the poverty level.) Furthermore, income should be distributed without requiring that recipients first divest themselves of their assets, as public welfare now does, thereby pauperizing families as a condition of sustenance.

Second, the right to income must be guaranteed, or the oppression of the welfare poor will not be eliminated. Because benefits are conditional under the present public welfare system, submission to arbitrary governmental power is regularly made the price of sustenance. People have been coerced into attending literacy classes or participating in medical or vocational rehabilitation regimes, on pain of having their benefits terminated. Men are forced into labor on virtually any terms lest they forfeit their welfare aid. One can prize literacy, health and work, while still vigorously opposing the right of government to compel compliance with these values.

Conditional benefits thus result in violations of civil liberties throughout the nation, and in a pervasive oppression of the poor. And these violations are not less real because the impulse leading to them is altruistic and the agency is professional. If new systems of income distribution continue to permit the professional bureaucracies to choose when to give and when to withhold financial relief, the poor will once again be surrendered to an arrangement in which their rights are diminished in the name of overcoming their vices. Those who lead an attack on the welfare system must therefore be alert to the pitfalls of inadequate but placating reforms which give the appearance of victory to what is in truth defeat.

How much economic force can be mobilized by this strategy? This question is not easy to answer because few studies have been conducted of people who are not receiving public assistance even though they may be eligible. For the purposes of this presentation, a few facts about New York City may be suggestive. Since practices elsewhere are generally acknowledged to be even more restrictive, the estimates of unused benefits which follow probably yield a conservative estimate of the potential force of the strategy set forth in this article.

Basic assistance for food and rent: The most striking characteristic of public welfare practice is that a great many people who appear to be eligible for assistance are not on the welfare rolls. The average monthly total of New York City residents receiving assistance in 1959 was 325,771, but according to the 1960 census. 716,000 persons (unrelated or in families) appeared to be subsisting on incomes at or below the prevailing welfare eligibility levels (e.g $2,070 for a family of four). In that same year, 539,000 people subsisted on incomes less than 80 per cent of the welfare minimums, and 200,000 lived alone or in families on incomes reported to be less than half of eligibility levels. Thus it appears that for every person on welfare in 1959, at least one more was eligible.

The results of two surveys of selected areas in Manhattan support the contention that many people subsist on incomes below welfare eligibility levels. One of these, conducted by Greenleigh Associates in 1964 in an urban-renewal area on New York’s upper West Side, found 9 per cent of those not on the rolls were in such acute need that they appeared to qualify for emergency assistance. The study showed, further, that a substantial number of families that were not in a “critical” condition would probably have qualified for supplemental assistance.

The other survey, conducted in 1961 by Mobilization for Youth, had similar findings. The area from which its sample was drawn, 67 square blocks on the lower East Side, is a poor one, but by no means the poorest in New York City. Yet 13 per cent of the total sample who were not on the welfare rolls reported incomes falling below the prevailing welfare schedules for food and rent.

There is no reason to suppose that the discrepancy between those eligible for and those receiving assistance has narrowed much in the past few years. The welfare rolls have gone up, to be sure, but so have eligibility levels. Since the economic circumstances of impoverished groups in New York have not improved appreciably in the past few years, each such rise increases the number of people who are potentially eligible for some degree of assistance.

Even if one allows for the possibility that family-income figures are grossly underestimated by the census, the financial implications of the proposed strategy are still very great. In 1965, the monthly average of persons receiving cash assistance in New York was 490,000, at a total cost of $440 million; the rolls have now risen above 500,000, so that costs will exceed $500 million in 1966. An increase in the rolls of a mere 20 per cent would cost an already overburdened municipality some $100 million.

Special grants: Public assistance recipients in New York are also entitled to receive “nonrecurring” grants for clothing, household equipment and furniture-including washing machines, refrigerators, beds and bedding, tables and chairs. It hardly needs to be noted that most impoverished families have grossly inadequate clothing and household furnishings. The Greenleigh study, for example, found that 52 per cent of the families on public assistance lacked anything approaching adequate furniture. This condition results because almost nothing is spent on special grants in New York. In October, 1965, a typical month, the Department of Welfare spent only $2.50 per recipient for heavy clothing and $1.30 for household furnishings. Taken together, grants of this kind amounted in 1965 to a mere $40 per person, or a total of $20 million for the entire year. Considering the real needs of families, the successful demand for full entitlements could multiply these expenditures tenfold or more and that would involve the disbursement of many millions of dollars indeed.

One must be cautious in making generalizations about the prospects for this strategy in any jurisdiction unless the structure of welfare practices has been examined in some detail. We can, however, cite other studies conducted in other places to show that New York practices are not atypical. In Detroit, for example, Greenleigh Associates studied a large sample of households in a low-income district in 1965. Twenty per cent were already receiving assistance, but 35 per cent more were judged to need it. Although the authors made no strict determination of the eligibility of these families under the laws of Michigan, they believed that “larger numbers of persons were eligible than receiving.” A good many of these families did not know that public assistance was available; others thought they would be deemed ineligible; not a few were ashamed or afraid to ask.

Similar deprivations have been shown in nation-wide studies. In 1963, the federal government carried out a survey based on a national sample of 5,500 families whose benefits under Aid to Dependent Children had been terminated. Thirty-four per cent of these cases were officially in need of income at the point of closing: this was true of 30 per cent of the white and 44 per cent of the Negro cases. The chief basis for termination given in local department records was “other reasons” (i.e., other than improvement in financial condition, which would make dependence on welfare unnecessary). Upon closer examination, these “other reasons” turned out to be “unsuitable home” (i.e., the presence of illegitimate children), “failure to comply with departmental regulations” or “refusal to take legal action against a putative father.” (Negroes were especially singled out for punitive action on the ground that children were not being maintained in “suitable homes.”) The amounts of money that people are deprived of by these injustices are very great.

In order to generate a crisis, the poor must obtain benefits which they have forfeited. Until now, they have been inhibited from asserting claims by self-protective devices within the welfare system: its capacity to limit information, to intimidate applicants, to demoralize recipients, and arbitrarily to deny lawful claims.

Ignorance of welfare rights can be attacked through a massive educational campaign Brochures describing benefits in simple, clear language, and urging people to seek their full entitlements, should be distributed door to door in tenements and public housing projects, and deposited in stores, schools, churches and civic centers. Advertisements should be placed in newspapers; spot announcements should be made on radio. Leaders of social, religious, fraternal and political groups in the slums should also be enlisted to recruit the eligible to the rolls. The fact that the campaign is intended to inform people of their legal rights under a government program, that it is a civic education drive, will lend it legitimacy.

But information alone will not suffice. Organizers will have to become advocates in order to deal effectively with improper rejections and terminations. The advocate’s task is to appraise the circumstances of each case, to argue its merits before welfare, to threaten legal action if satisfaction is not given. In some cases, it will be necessary to contest decisions by requesting a “fair hearing” before the appropriate state supervisory agency; it may occasionally be necessary to sue for redress in the courts. Hearings and court actions will require lawyers, many of whom, in cities like New York, can be recruited on a voluntary basis, especially under the banner of a movement to end poverty by a strategy of asserting legal rights. However, most cases will not require an expert knowledge of law, but only of welfare regulations; the rules can be learned by laymen, including welfare recipients themselves (who can help to man “information and advocacy” centers). To aid workers in these centers, handbooks should be prepared describing welfare rights and the tactics to employ in claiming them.

Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy that will overcome the invidious and immobilizing attitudes which many potential recipients hold toward being “on welfare.” In such a climate, many more poor people are likely to become their own advocates and will not need to rely on aid from organizers.

As the crisis develops, it will be important to use the mass media to inform the broader liberal community about the inefficiencies and injustices of welfare. For example, the system will not be able to process many new applicants because of cumbersome and often unconstitutional investigatory procedures (which cost 20c for every dollar disbursed). As delays mount, so should the public demand that a simplified affidavit supplant these procedures, so that the poor may certify to their condition. If the system reacts by making the proof of eligibility more difficult, the demand should be made that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare dispatch “eligibility registrars” to enforce federal statutes governing local programs. And throughout the crisis, the mass media should be used to advance arguments for a new federal income distribution program.

Although new resources in organizers and funds would have to be developed to mount this campaign, a variety of conventional agencies in the large cities could also be drawn upon for help. The idea of “welfare rights” has begun to attract attention in many liberal circles. A number of organizations, partly under the aegis of the “war against poverty,” are developing information and advocacy services for low-income people [see “Poverty, Injustice and the Welfare State” by Richard A. Cloward and Richard M. Elman, The Nation, issues of February 28, 1966 and March 7, 1966]. It is not likely that these organizations will directly participate in the present strategy, for obvious political reasons. But whether they participate or not, they constitute a growing network of resources to which people can be referred for help in establishing and maintaining entitlements. In the final analysis, it does not matter who helps people to get on the rolls or to get additional entitlements, so long as the job is done.

Since this plan deals with problems of great immediacy In the lives of the poor, it should motivate some of them to involve themselves in regular organizational activities. Welfare recipients, chiefly ADC mothers, are already forming federations, committees and councils in cities across the nation; in Boston, New York, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles, to mention a few. Such groups typically focus on obtaining full entitlements for existing recipients rather than on recruiting new recipients, and they do not yet comprise a national movement. But their very existence attests to a growing readiness among ghetto residents to act against public welfare.

To generate an expressly political movement, cadres of aggressive organizers would have to come from the civil rights movement and the churches, from militant low-income organizations like those formed by the Industrial Areas Foundation (that is, by Saul Alinsky), and from other groups on the Left. These activists should be quick to see the difference between programs to redress individual grievances and a large-scale social-action campaign for national policy reform.

Movements that depend on involving masses of poor people have generally failed in America. Why would the proposed strategy to engage the poor succeed?

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America’s poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests. Since radical movements in America have rarely been able to provide visible economic incentives, they have usually failed to secure mass participation of any kind. The conservative “business unionism” of organized labor is explained by this fact, for membership enlarged only as unionism paid off in material benefits. Union leaders have understood that their strength derives almost entirely from their capacity to provide economic rewards to members. Although leaders have increasingly acted in political spheres, their influence has been directed chiefly to matters of governmental policy affecting the well-being of organized workers. The same point is made by the experience of rent strikes in Northern cities. Their organizers were often motivated by radical ideologies, but tenants have been attracted by the promise that housing improvements would quickly be made if they withheld their rent.

Second, for this strategy to succeed, one need not ask more of most of the poor than that they claim lawful benefits. Thus the plan has the extraordinary capability of yielding mass influence without mass participation, at least as the term “participation” is ordinarily understood. Mass influence in this case stems from the consumption of benefits and does not require that large groups of people be involved in regular organizational roles.

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the dram on local resources persists indefinitely. Other movements have failed precisely because they could not produce continuous and cumulative influence. In the Northern rent strikes, for example, tenant participation depended largely on immediate grievances; as soon as landlords made the most minimal repairs, participation fell away and with it the impact of the movement. Efforts to revive tenant participation by organizing demonstrations around broader housing issues (e.g., the expansion of public housing) did not succeed because the incentives were not immediate.

Third, the prospects for mass influence are enhanced because this plan provides a practical basis for coalition between poor whites and poor Negroes. Advocates of low-income movements have not been able to suggest how poor whites and poor Negroes can be united in an expressly lower-class movement. Despite pleas of some Negro leaders for joint action on programs requiring integration, poor whites have steadfastly resisted making common cause with poor Negroes. By contrast, the benefits of the present plan are as great for whites as for Negroes. In the big cities, at least, it does not seem likely that poor whites, whatever their prejudices against either Negroes or public welfare, will refuse to participate when Negroes aggressively claim benefits that are unlawfully denied to them as well. One salutary consequence of public information campaigns to acquaint Negroes with their rights is that many whites will be made aware of theirs. Even if whites prefer to work through their own organizations and leaders, the consequences will be equivalent to joining with Negroes. For if the object is to focus attention on the need for new economic measures by producing a crisis over the dole, anyone who insists upon extracting maximum benefits from public welfare is in effect part of a coalition and is contributing to the cause.

The ultimate aim of this strategy is a new program for direct income distribution. What reason is there to expect that the federal government will enact such legislation in response to a crisis in the welfare system?

We ordinarily think of major legislation as taking form only through established electoral processes. We tend to overlook the force of crisis in precipitating legislative reform, partly because we lack a theoretical framework by which to understand the impact of major disruptions.

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention. Public trouble is a political liability, it calls for action by political leaders to stabilize the situation. Because crisis usually creates or exposes conflict, it threatens to produce cleavages in a political consensus which politicians will ordinarily act to avert.

Although crisis impels political action, it does not itself determine the selection of specific solutions. Political leaders will try to respond with proposals which work to their advantage in the electoral process. Unless group cleavages form around issues and demands, the politician has great latitude and tends to proffer only the minimum action required to quell disturbances without risking existing electoral support. Spontaneous disruptions, such as riots, rarely produce leaders who articulate demands; thus no terms are imposed, and political leaders are permitted to respond in ways that merely restore a semblance of stability without offending other groups in a coalition.

When, however, a crisis is defined by its participants–or by other activated groups–as a matter of clear issues and preferred solutions, terms are imposed on the politicians’ bid for their support. Whether political leaders then design solutions to reflect these terms depends on a twofold calculation: first, the impact of the crisis and the issues it raises on existing alignments and, second, the gains or losses in support to be expected as a result of a proposed resolution.

As to the impact on existing alignments, issues exposed by a crisis may activate new groups, thus altering the balance of support and opposition on the issues; or it may polarize group sentiments, altering the terms which must be offered to insure the support of given constituent groups. In framing resolutions, politicians are more responsive to group shifts and are more likely to accommodate to the terms imposed when electoral coalitions threatened by crisis are already uncertain or weakening. In other words, the politician responds to group demands, not only by calculating the magnitude of electoral gains and losses, but by assessing the impact of the resolution on the stability of existing or potential coalitions. Political leaders are especially responsive to group shifts when the terms of settlement can be framed so as to shore up an existing coalition, or as a basis for the development of new and more stable alignments, without jeopardizing existing support. Then, indeed, the calculation of net gain is most secure.

The legislative reforms of the depression years, for example, were impelled not so much by organized interests exercised through regular electoral processes as by widespread economic crisis. That crisis precipitated the disruption of the regionally based coalitions underlying the old national parties. During the realignments of 1932, a new Democratic coalition was formed, based heavily on urban working-class groups. Once in power, the national Democratic leadership proposed and implemented the economic reforms of the New Deal. Although these measures were a response to the imperative of economic crisis, the types of measures enacted were designed to secure and stabilize the new Democratic coalition.

The civil rights movement, to take a recent case, also reveals the relationship of crisis and electoral conditions in producing legislative reform. The crisis in the South took place in the context of a weakening North-South Democratic coalition. The strains in that coalition were first evident in the Dixiecrat desertion of 1948, and continued through the Eisenhower years as the Republicans gained ground in the Southern states. Democratic party leaders at first tried to hold the dissident South by warding off the demands of enlarging Negro constituencies in Northern cities. Thus for two decades the national Democratic Party campaigned on strongly worded civil rights planks but enacted only token measures. The civil rights movement forced the Democrats’ hand: a crumbling Southern partnership was forfeited, and major civil rights legislation was put forward, designed to insure the support of Northern Negroes and liberal elements in the Democratic coalition. That coalition emerged strong from the 1964 election, easily able to overcome the loss of Southern states to Goldwater. At the same time, the enacted legislation, particularly the Voting Rights Act, laid the ground for a new Southern Democratic coalition of moderate whites and the hitherto untapped reservoir of Southern Negro voters.

The electoral context which made crisis effective in the South is also to be found in the big cities of the nation today. Deep tensions have developed among groups comprising the political coalitions of the large cities–the historic stronghold of the Democratic Party. As a consequence, urban politicians no longer turn in the vote to national Democratic candidates with unfailing regularity. The marked defections revealed in the elections of the 1950s and which continued until the Johnson landslide of 1964 are a matter of great concern to the national party. Precisely because of this concern, a strategy to exacerbate still further the strains in the urban coalition can be expected to evoke a response from national leaders.

The weakening of the urban coalition is a result of many basic changes in the relationship of local party leadership to its constituents. First, the political machine, the distinctive and traditional mechanism for forging alliances among competing groups in the city, is now virtually defunct in most cities Successive waves of municipal reform have deprived political leaders of control over the public resources–jobs, contracts, services and favors–which machine politicians formerly dispensed to voters in return for electoral support. Conflicts among elements in the urban Democratic coalition, once held together politically because each secured a share of these benefits, cannot now be so readily contained. And as the means of placating competing groups have diminished, tensions along ethnic and class lines have multiplied. These tensions are being intensified by the encroachments of an enlarging ghetto population on jobs, schools and residential areas Big-city mayors are thus caught between antagonistic working-class ethnic groups, the remaining middle class, and the rapidly enlarging minority poor.

Second, there are discontinuities in the relationship between the urban party apparatus and its ghetto constituents which have so far remained unexposed but which a welfare crisis would force into view. The ghetto vote has been growing rapidly and has so far returned overwhelming Democratic majorities. Nevertheless, this voting bloc is not fully integrated in the party apparatus, either through the representation of its leaders or the accommodation of its interests.

While the urban political apparatus includes members of new minority groups, these groups are by no means represented according to their increasing proportions in the population. More important, elected representation alone is not an adequate mechanism for the expression of group interests. Influence in urban politics is won not only at the polls but through the sustained activity of organized interests–such as labor unions, home-owner associations and business groups. These groups keep watch over the complex operations of municipal agencies, recognizing issues and regularly asserting their point of view through meetings with public officials, appearances at public hearings and the like, and by exploiting a whole array of channels of influence on government. Minority constituencies–at least the large proportion of them that are poor–are not regular participants in the various institutional spheres where organized interest groups typically develop. Thus the interests of the mass of minority poor are not protected by associations which make their own or other political leaders responsive by continuously calling them to account. Urban party organizations have become, in consequence, more an avenue for the personal advancement of minority political leaders than a channel for the expression of minority-group interests. And the big-city mayors, struggling to preserve an uneasy urban consensus, have thus been granted the slack to evade the conflict-generating interests of the ghetto. A crisis in public welfare would expose the tensions latent in this attenuated relationship between the ghetto vote and the urban party leadership, for it would thrust forward ghetto demands and back them with the threat of defections by voters who have so far remained both loyal and quiescent.

In the face of such a crisis, urban political leaders may well be paralyzed by a party apparatus which ties them to older constituent groups, even while the ranks of these groups are diminishing. The national Democratic leadership, however, is alert to the importance of the urban Negro vote, especially in national contests where the loyalty of other urban groups is weakening. Indeed, many of the legislative reforms of the Great Society can be understood as efforts, however feeble, to reinforce the allegiance of growing ghetto constituencies to the national Democratic Administration. In the thirties, Democrats began to put forward measures to circumvent the states in order to reach the big-city elements in the New Deal coalition; now it is becoming expedient to put forward measures to circumvent the weakened big-city mayors in order to reach the new minority poor.

Recent federal reforms have been impelled in part by widespread unrest in the ghetto, and instances of more aggressive Negro demands. But despite these signs that the ghetto vote may become less reliable in the future, there has been as yet no serious threat of massive defection. The national party has therefore not put much pressure on its urban branches to accommodate the minority poor. The resulting reforms have consequently been quite modest (e.g., the war against poverty, with its emphasis on the “involvement of the poor,” is an effort to make the urban party apparatus somewhat more accommodating).

A welfare crisis would, of course, produce dramatic local political crisis, disrupting and exposing rifts among urban groups. Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition. Whites–both working-class ethnic groups and many in the middle class–would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few and, in any event, receiving the beneficent assistance of public welfare, would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe. In New York City, where the Mayor is now facing desperate revenue shortages, welfare expenditures are already second only to those for public education.

It should also be noted that welfare costs are generally shared by local, state and federal governments, so that the crisis in the cities would intensify the struggle over revenues that is chronic in relations between cities and states. If the past is any predictor of the future, cities will fail to procure relief from this crisis by persuading states to increase their proportionate share of urban welfare costs, for state legislatures have been notoriously unsympathetic to the revenue needs of the city (especially where public welfare and minority groups are concerned).

If this strategy for crisis would intensify group cleavages, a federal income solution would not further exacerbate them. The demands put forward during recent civil rights drives in the Northern cities aroused the opposition of huge majorities. Indeed, such fierce resistance was evoked (e.g., school boycotts followed by counter-boycotts), that accessions by political leaders would have provoked greater political turmoil than the protests themselves, for profound class and ethnic interests are at stake in the employment, educational and residential institutions of our society. By contrast, legislative measures to provide direct income to the poor would permit national Democratic leaden to cultivate ghetto constituencies without unduly antagonizing other urban groups, as is the case when the battle lines are drawn over schools, housing or jobs. Furthermore, a federal income program would not only redeem local governments from the immediate crisis but would permanently relieve them of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare–a function which generates support from none and hostility from many, not least of all welfare recipients. We suggest, in short, that if pervasive institutional reforms are not yet possible, requiring as they do expanded Negro political power and the development of new political alliances, crisis tactics can nevertheless be employed to secure particular reforms in the short run by exploiting weaknesses in current political alignments. Because the urban coalition stands weakened by group conflict today, disruption and threats of disaffection will count powerfully, provided that national leaders can respond with solutions which retain the support of ghetto constituencies while avoiding new group antagonisms and bolstering the urban party apparatus. These are the conditions, then, for an effective crisis strategy in the cities to secure an end to poverty.

No strategy, however confident its advocates may be, is foolproof. But if unforeseen contingencies thwart this plan to bring about new federal legislation in the field of poverty, it should also be noted that there would be gains even in defeat. For one thing, the plight of many poor people would be somewhat eased in the course of an assault upon public welfare. Existing recipients would come to know their rights and how to defend them, thus acquiring dignity where none now exists; and millions of dollars in withheld welfare benefits would become available to potential recipients now–not several generations from now. Such an attack should also be welcome to those currently concerned with programs designed to equip the young to rise out of poverty (e.g., Head Start), for surely children learn more readily when the oppressive burden of financial insecurity is lifted from the shoulders of their parents. And those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.

© 1966 The Nation


In searching for historic documents related to the New World Order I came across this collection that I had never seen before. For those of you who believe this New World Order talk is  something new,  here are some docs you may want to review. This clearly shows that the elite have had a plan in place for well over 50 years.  Their plan was to erode national sovereignty piece by piece, until the citizens of this country willingly hand over their sovereignty to this One World Government, New World. They state that new enemies need to be identified, would this be  the “war on terror”? Is that one of our new enemies  that we need bigger government to protect us from?  How about this, in searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, they came up with pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, and famine, would fit the bill.

 (unfortunately not all of the pictures will fit on the pages.)

It’s all here; they have time on their side. Here is their long term plan that they have been implementing for years and years. We shall start with the Congressional Record of 1940, entered on  Monday, August 19th. The information speaks for itself:


In the April 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relations journal, “Foreign Affairs”, Richard N. Gardner wrote a section of this issue entitled, “The Hard Road To World Order” (pp. 556-576). He goes on to state that the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up, among much more.. The following scans are from a University Library:

Now, I’ll jump back to the 1940 Congressional Record…

n addition, there’s a famous quote online from James Warburg on February 17, 1950:

On February 17, 1950, CFR member James Warburg (banker, and architect of the Federal Reserve System) stated before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We shall have one world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.” Again, the media remained silent.

Taking a step back, let’s look at the first publication of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1922.

From here, I’ll shift focus to the famous “Club Of Rome”,who’s members include Al Gore, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, George Soros, and many more.. These are some excerpts from their 1992 report entitled “The First Global Revolution”…

The following is an article located in the FBI Vault file From 1970, discussing The Council On Foreign Relations & Agenda:

Interestingly enough, this FBI vault section on the CFR has 222 pages of documents, most of which are letters from concerned people and as far back as 1950. I think J. Edgar Hoover must have spent crazy amounts of time responding to all these, and I would guess that he only took the time to respond to a few!

The following is from the 1953 California Legislature’s Eleventh Report: Senate Investigating Committee On Education…

Finally, I’ll wrap this up with the issue surrounding the late Congressman .

“Many of you have seen a recent thread on the late Congressman in an airing of Crossfire from 1983, where he openly discusses the elitist group and much more (and subsequently “died” months later). If you listen closely, he mentions “The Schlesinger Manifesto”, a slang term given to an article appearing in the 1947 May-June issue of The Partisan Review. The article was written by Arthur Schlesinger, a professor and historian who later became “high in the councils” of the Kennedy Administration. This article was inserted into the U.S. Congressional Record 14 years later in 1961.” First, the broadcast:

Now, the document he mentioned: The Schlesinger Manifesto…

And, for those of you who are still with me, well done and I hope this information is helpful.