Cloward-Piven strategy

Described here on Wikipedia.  The article states that Glen Beck talked about it.  Since I never watched TV, I haven't seen Beck but once, on a YouTube video just recently.  When you look at the debt situation, you can't help but notice the parallels between what this strategy intended and the direction in which we are headed.

Since I don't listen to talk radio much anymore and I don't watch TV or Beck, nobody can claim that I am being taken in by far right wing ideology.  I have just been watching all this over the years.  Plus, I noted that this was beginning to gather steam in the Bush years.  It has also occurred to me that the Republicans, for all intents and purposes, are not any different from Democrats.  Hence, the Politics Schmolitics label on my posts.  My sources and methods are independent.

I just don't trust the politicians anymore.  Doesn't matter what political stripe, they end up doing the same thing.  Ultimately, the idea is to divide and conquer.  Isn't that what they are doing?  The pretend to offer opposition while out of power, but when in power, they just keep doing the same things as was being done before.  The belief is, when you throw the bums out, that change will occur.  What change?  Nothing changes and we keep moving towards the brink.  People end up at each others throats, divided and quarelling , but that works in the favor of the politicians whose real worry is that the people catch on, unite, and put an end to this nonsense.

Robert Ringer's blog

He's got the right idea now, but he was against McCain in 2008. So, this rings a little hollow right now. I guess his thinking was that McCain was going to take us down the socialist path just as Obama is, but only more slowly. I'll take more slowly, because that gives you more time to stop it.

Update:

This is good too, but where was he with this kind of thinking in 2008?  

With Glenn Beck leaving the scene, it’s all the more important that tea-party candidates in the Michele Bachmann-Allen West-Jim DeMint-Mike Lee mold overwhelm the House and Senate in 2012. Then, even if an establishment type compromiser like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee wins the presidency, when he puts his finger in the wind, he’s likely to back the tea-party agenda on all major issues.

Copyright © 2011 Robert Ringer

ROBERT RINGER is the author of three #1 bestsellers and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. Ringer has appeared on numerous national talk shows and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron’s, and The New York Times.

To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity in an Insane World, visit: www.robertringer.com
 

Pro Growth, where are you?

Larry Kudlow asks a good question:  what's wrong with a pro growth policy?

Enough doom and gloom

Here's some optimism. After all, this is a solutions site, not a wring your hands doom and gloom site. The first part of this show is of particular interest to me because of commercial space.  Via the Speculist.

Listen to internet radio with The Speculist on Blog Talk Radio

Compare and contrast

Rosie then



Rosie now




She reserves all her compassion and concern for bin Laden, but notice how hard she is on Bush. We are not monsters, she says. Only toward those who already hate us and want to kill us. But those who want to kill us are not going to be impressed with what Rosie says. Good intentions will not earn you any brownie points with these people. If they are capable of mass murder, they have crossed the line and have to be dealt with accordingly. If they support mass murder in this fashion, we need to know who they are and also act accordingly. Rosie and those like her are a plague upon this nation. We really need to know why she is so quick to exonerate those who would kill us and accuse those who would protect us.

This kind of thinking has got to go

Bill Maher says maybe bin Laden won.  No, I think it is guys like Maher who manage to intimidate those who would have and could have taken more aggressive action after 9/11.  We did indeed spend a lot of money, but it wasn't necessarily to go after bin Laden per se.  It was to remake the Middle East.  If the whole operation boiled down to taking out bin Laden, then this was a huge waste of money.  It wasn't bin Laden, but our own leadership who won't take the action needed to deal with these people. It would have been guys like Maher who would have screamed bloody murder if we handled this in a more aggressive manner back then.  He complained enough as it is.  Now, the death of bin Laden is seen as the culmination of the whole affair and that is seen as an extraordinary expense in order to accomplish such a limited outcome.  Guys like Maher who wouldn't support what we did do, minimize its chances of success at that time, then turn around and reduce it to one man, bin Laden after they manage to turn the people against what we did do.  Now they feel a bad feeling that they haven't really solved the problem, and they haven't.  But could it be that guys like Maher don't want the problem to be solved in the first place?

Morn. Summ 5/8

Well, I think I am very popular with bots.  If what I wrote didn't even get a comment, this has to be because hardly anybody is reading this.  Too bad.  What I wrote was pretty good.  I am proud to produce it, but it appears to be all in vain.  Nobody is interested.  Again, that's too bad.  I'm not going to lose sleep over it.