The strategy to destroy America

In the mid-sixties at the height of the“social revolution” the line between democratic benevolence and outright communism became rather blurry. The Democratic Party, which controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress was used as the springboard by social engineers to introduce a new era of welfare initiatives enacted in the name of “defending the poor”, also known as the “Great Society Programs” These initiatives, however, were driven by far more subversive and extreme motivations, and have been expanded on by every presidency since Republican and Democrat alike.

Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven

At Columbia University, sociologist professors Richard Cloward and Francis Fox Piven introduced a political strategy in 1966 in an article entitled ‘The Weight Of The Poor: A Strategy To End Poverty’. This article outlined a plan that they believed would eventually lead to the total transmutation of America into a full- fledged centralized welfare state (in other words, a collectivist enclave). The spearpoint of the Cloward-Piven strategy involved nothing less than economic sabotage against the U.S.

Theoretically, according to the doctrine, a condition of overwhelming tension and strain could be engineered through the overloading of American welfare rolls, thereby smothering the entitlement program structure at the state and local level. The implosion of welfare benefits would facilitate a massive spike in poverty and desperation, creating a financial crisis that would lead to an even greater cycle of demand for a fully socialized system. This desperation would then“force” the federal government to concentrate all welfare programs under one roof, nationalize and enforce a socialist ideology, and ultimately, compact an immense level of power into the hands of a select few.

Cloward and Piven claimed that this could be accomplished at a grassroots level through community activism, and that it would facilitate a more compassionate federal authority however, there are numerous problems with these assertions.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy has nothing to do with grassroots activism and accomplishes nothing tangible for the downtrodden poverty class. In fact I would dare to say that Cloward and Piven as well as most social engineers are well aware that the concept ultimately only serves to give even more dominance to the establishment and pilfer even more freedom from the masses.

Cloward-Piven is not limited to the destabilization of state and local welfare programs. It can easily be used against federal level entitlements, and in reality, is much more effective against an entity with the proven tendency towards exponential debt spending. 

Though the federal government may be able to borrow fiat dollars through the Federal Reserve to prolong welfare rolls while the states cannot, a more volatile threat arises when debt monetization begins to wear down the purchasing power of the currency. 

Weakened purchasing power results in reduced consumer activity less industrial growth, less GDP, and obviously, more poverty. The dollar has lost approximately 98% of its purchasing power since 1972, and after 50 years of the so-called “War on Poverty”,  nearly one third of the American population  now repeatedly slips under the official poverty line.

In the past decade alone, the number of people dependent on food stamps and EBT for their survival in the U.S has more than doubled from 25 million people to over 52 million people. Those who receive some kind of payment from the government, including those on social security, disability, and veterans benefits, are approximately 109 million. Americans on social security do not consider themselves welfare recipients because they paid into the system, however, the point remains that if the federal money tap shuts down due to overwhelming participation, the checks will stop whether you paid into the system or not.

In the end, it is the Federal Government itself that is most vulnerable to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and I believe the goal is to set fire to all social structures in the U.S. then assimilate them into a new globalist system.

The tactic of overwhelming the welfare structure REQUIRES the complicity of the government itself. A grassroots activist movement cannot and will never compel federal and state governments to expand welfare initiatives if they do not wish to. If welfare programs are not expanded beyond their capacity to be maintained, they cannot be overwhelmed. Therefore, government must cooperate with the Cloward-Piven Strategy by generating more and more welfare programs to be exploited. That is to say, the elitists who control our government, regardless of their claimed political party, must want to arrange circumstances to allow for Cloward-Piven to be successful.

Another key component of Cloward- Piven is the existence of an immense number of poverty stricken people. Without a significant portion of the population under the poverty level there is no mass of people to use as a weapon. Again, grassroots activists would be hard pressed to actually create the kind of poverty levels they would need for exploitation.

Saul Alinsky

But wait! Government, along with the aid or direction of central bankers, is able to create any level of poverty it wishes at any time by simply pretending to bungle everything it does. Once again Cloward-Piven ( much like Saul Alinsky’s repertoire of propaganda scams) is far more useful to the power elite than it is to the common citizen.

As former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel,  famously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before…”

Barack Obama As Lucifer

In light of the Cloward-Piven Strategy which is at its very core a method to artificially induce crisis, the otherwise insane policy actions of the Obama Administration and preceding puppet presidents now become perfectly logical. Obama, after all, has been a long time proponent of the methods of Saul Alinsky, the left wing gatekeeper equivalent to Neo-Con godfather Leo Strauss. Cloward and Piven were also both avid followers of Alinsky, who promoted lies, misdirection, subversion and abandonment of conscience in order to win social power at any cost(special note – Alinsky also dedicated his book ‘Rules For Radicals’ to Lucifer… yeah, to the fucking’ devil).

Under Obama’s watch alone, our real national debt including unfunded liabilities and entitlements has risen to nearly $200 trillion. Our “official” national debt has gone from $10 trillion to $17 trillion in the short time Obama has been in office. Real unemployment including U-6 measurements stands at around 12% of all Americans. Personal wealth and savings have plummeted. Wages remain in stasis while prices on necessary goods continue to rise.

I examined much evidence suggesting that Obamacare was actually designed to fail, and that the bumbling of the Obama White House when dealing with the program was purely deliberate. When coupled with Obama’s handling of the current illegal immigration conflict, I would say that the Cloward- Piven Strategy is in full force.

Why fight tooth and nail against all common sense and history, why lie openly to millions of registered voters to get the program in place, only to allow it to derail because of a poorly designed website!? Because, Obama and his handlers know full well that it will end up costing the country billions that we cannot afford, and aid in a resulting crash.

Why the sudden surge of illegal immigrants into the U.S.? Why not! The White House has made it clear that it has every intention of keeping them within America by allowing the border patrol to ship the detained across the country where they are then released. Obama’s threat to use executive action to force through his own version of the immigration bill is the icing on the cake.

Amnesty is essentially guaranteed, I believe, in the near term, which is why tens of thousands of Central American parents are willing to send their children on a journey where they could very well be kidnapped by sex traffickers or killed. If the White House really wanted to stop this humanitarian crisis, the President would state publicly and clearly that America is not a drive through welfare center, that there will be no free goodies at the second window, and that there will be no chance of amnesty instead of diverting more agents to the border to ensure more illegals are shipped into the interior.

The president does not wish to stop the flood of immigrants exactly because Cloward-Piven requires their presence Not only would this officially add millions of people to welfare rolls, but I would venture to suggest that Obama will likely include automatic sign-up to universal healthcare as part of his amnesty measures.

If there wasn’t enough strain on the social welfare structure before, there certainly will be now.

I would remind readers, though, that in the final analysis this is NOT about Obama. I have seen other commentators including Glenn Beck discuss Cloward- Piven in the past, but always through the blinders of the false left/right paradigm. Obama could not have attained the levels of destabilization he has without standing on the shoulders of those political errand boys who came before him.

Ronald Reagan for instance, was also responsible for signing the Immigration Reform And Control Act of 1986 into law, which was supposed to trade the amnesty of 3 million illegals for greater border security. This new “more comprehensive” security was never implemented by Reagan. 

Both Republican and Democratic regimes have made our current calamity possible, and the leaderships behind both parties are nothing more than paid mascots for international financiers and globalists who have a very different vision of what America should be.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the trap of making the developing crisis about a singularly unimportant man such as Obama, then the elites get exactly what they want – an angry and desperate citizenry out for the blood of a middleman and out for the blood of each other, while they sit back, relax, and wait to swoop in as our financial saviors with strings attached.

For those naïve enough to assume that Cloward-Piven is just a well intentioned activist method, it is important to understand that even if that were so, the effect of the Cloward- Piven Strategy will never achieve the goal its creators claimed to support. In my view, it is probable that they never really intended for it to produce wealth equality or an increased quality of life.

The tactic can only decrease wealth security by making all citizens equally destitute. As we have seen in numerous socialist and communist experiments over the past century, economic harmonization never creates wealth or prosperity, it only siphons wealth from one area and redistributes it to others evaporating much of it as it is squeezed through the grinding gears of the establishment machine.

Socialism, in its very essence, elevates government to the role of all-pervasive parent, and casts the citizenry down into the role of dependent sniveling infant. Even in its most righteous form, Cloward-Piven seeks to make infants of us all whether we like it or not.

But in regard to the sudden illegal immigrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, President Obama is indeed using the Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm America.

For a look back on how the Obama Administration brought us to this point enter into evidence two extensive timelines:

The first, is entitled, “ A Timeline of the Obama Administration’s Four Year-Long Conspiracy to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Aliens by Dismantling Enforcement of Our Laws Against Illegal Immigration.

The second, is entitled, “Timeline: How The Obama Administration Bypassed Congress To Dismantle Immigration Enforcement”.

But here are just three very basic examples floating around the news lately that get the idea across easily enough.

Not only did DHS put out a  purchase order  for escort services for 65,000 unaccompanied alien children all the way back in January…

And not only does the 2015 Department of Justice appropriations  report, also released earlier this year, ask for funding for “a pilot unaccompanied alien children program”…

But now, in a direct contradiction of what the administration is telling the American public a  recently leaked Homeland Security memo  admits  the fact that “only 0.1 percent of the Central American minors illegally entering the U.S. having been deported in Fiscal Year 2013 down from two percent prior,” and this “plays a significant role in why the current border crisis is occurring.”

So, in essence, our government officials  knew  this wave of illegal immigrants were coming to our borders and they  planned  for it well before it hit, because they’ve  known  for quite some time the Obama Administration’s policies are  causing  it to happen.

This is in addition to the fact that a  2013 ICE document reveals in detail  the fact that over 36,000  criminal  illegal aliens were  released  from our government’s custody  deportation proceedings  in that year alone. These people had a whopping 88,000 convictions between them, including homicide, sexual assault kidnapping, aggravated assault, car theft, and drunk/drugged driving to name just a few.

Sounds a lot like a set up, doesn’t it?

Well, now Rep.  Steve King, R-Iowa and Rep.  Steve Stockman, R-Texas both agree that the Obama Administration’s policies are derived from a Cloward- Piven strategy — a strategy concocted by radical sociologists to crash the system and transform America into a socialist state.

“I do feel this attempt to flood the border with illegals is a playing out of the Cloward-Piven theory,” said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

“If you don’t see them bring reinforcements down there to seal the border, that means that, yes, it’s a Cloward-Piven maneuver to flood the country until we get to the point where we are an open-borders country that welcomes everybody, legal and illegal. 

Obama – who studied the chaos strategy at Columbia, according to a classmate – “is trying to do a Cloward-Piven thing with the border".

A political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of ‘a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

Border resources are already being overwhelmed. The House Homeland Security Chair is calling it a “crisis like nothing I’ve ever seen”. A potential pandemic is becoming more likely by the day, as people crossing into the country are reportedly infected with everything from drug-resistant tuberculosis to HIV to scabies, rabies and dengue hemorrhagic fever — people who are barely being checked out and definitely not properly quarantined from otherwise healthy people. Border Patrol whistleblowers are coming forward,  despite an Obama Administration gag order, to say that they are not being allowed to do their jobs.

This thing is far from under any semblance of control.

Beyond that, with more Americans on welfare programs now than at any other time in American history, a sudden massive influx of enrollees could easily crash the system, leading inevitably to the kinds of civil disturbances the government has been gearing up to respond to by suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law.

Massive influx

In fact, a massive influx of immigrants across the U.S.-Mexico border was the main pretext under which the Rex 84 program and its FEMA camps were designed in the first place Regardless of the fact that the Obama Administration is trying to frame this as a “humanitarian crisis,” rest assured it’s a created crisis, and the only way to solve it will be with even more big government. 

By framing the flood of children immigrants as a “humanitarian crisis,” President Obama has greater leverage to offer more legal and physical help to illegal immigrant minors. This in turn creates an even more enticing reason for parents in Central and South America to send their children over the border, often unaccompanied.  Parents know that their children will be attended to once they’re over the border. The result is that the entire system is completely overwhelmed and unworkable.

 Gen John Kelly

Perhaps that is why Marine Corps Gen John Kelly, commander of SOUTHCOM, is calling the recent surge in illegal immigration at America’s southern border “a threat to the United States very existence”.

Is This Our America Anymore?

Buried in the Oct. 30 Washington Post was a bland headline: "Report Points to Faster Recovery in Jobs for Immigrants."


The story, however, contained social dynamite that explains the rage of Americans who are smeared as nativists and xenophobes for demanding a timeout on immigration.

In the April-May-June quarter, foreign-born workers in the U.S. gained 656,000 jobs. And native-born Americans lost 1.2 million.

From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, foreign-born Hispanics gained 98,000 construction jobs. Native-born Hispanics lost 133,000. Black and white U.S. construction workers lost 511,000 jobs.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2010, 13.1 million immigrants, legal and illegal, entered the United States, a decade in which America lost 1 million jobs.

From 2008 and 2009, the figures are startling. In 24 months, 2.4 million immigrants, legal and illegal, arrived, as U.S. citizens were losing 8.6 million jobs.

Query: Why are we importing a million-plus workers a year when 17 million Americans can't find work? Whose country is this?

Why do we not declare a moratorium on all immigration, until our unemployment rate falls to 6 or 5 percent? Charity begins at home. Ought we not take care of our own jobless first before we invite in strangers to take their jobs?

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, each year between 300,000 and 400,000 "anchor babies" are born to illegal aliens. These newborns are entitled to citizenship, free health care and education, welfare and food stamps. Their parents -- almost all are poor or working class -- rarely pay any state or federal income tax.

How long can we keep granting citizenship and full social welfare benefits to the children of people who break our laws and break into our country or overstay their visas? How long can we keep bringing in workers to take jobs when our unemployment rate hovers around 10 percent?

Again, according to the Pew Center, the number of anchor babies here now is about 4 million. Add to that 3 million to 4 million born each decade, and it will not be long before Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Texas resemble California, which is on the brink of default.

If no action is taken, the Republican Party will soon be unable, even in wave elections, to win the presidency, as it won nothing and indeed lost state legislative seats in California in 2010.

The border will disappear, and America will be a geographical expression, not a country anymore.

Legal scholar William Quirk describes a new phenomenon in the invasion of America: "maternity tourism." Pregnant Asian women pay $15,000 to agents to ensure they are in the United States when their child is born so that they can return home secure in the knowledge he or she will be a U.S. citizen with the right to a U.S.-taxpayer subsidized education in college.

Though the nation has awakened to the threat to social cohesion and national solvency, Harry Reid is still attempting to ram through a lame-duck Senate an amnesty for illegal aliens up to age 30 who claim they were brought here before they were 16, have a high school diploma or GED and state that they intend to go to college within six years.

An estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens would be amnestied, put on a path to citizenship, and be eligible for student loans and more. According to Alabama's Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act."

Lawbreaking would be rewarded. Chain migration would continue. A permanent powerful magnet would be provided to all foreigners to sneak into the United States and be sure to bring the kids.

As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher argues, one effect of the DREAM Act will be to move illegals applying to college ahead of many Americans, as 80 percent of illegals are Hispanics and eligible for affirmative action.

U.S. soldiers coming home from Afghanistan will "sit in back," as Obama puts it, when competing against amnestied illegals. Several days ago, UCLA's Kent Wong addressed a pro-amnesty rally in Los Angeles' MacArthur Park. Wong turned the race card face up.

When Reid's bill passes, said Wong, "the young people of the DREAM Act movement will go on to accomplish and do great things. ... You will go on to become lawyers, teachers, doctors and members of the U.S. Congress to replace those old white men ...."

If the DREAM Act passes, Wong is right about whose time has come and gone. May the tea party take names at the call of the roll.

Why the Lame Duck Session of Congress is So Dangerous

To understand Washington DC, you have to first stop listening to the rhetoric, and start watching the behavior. As TV character Michael Weston aptly puts it, “Watch my actions, not my words.” Underneath all the bluster, we live in a single party country where the Republicans and Democrats are just different factions of a big-government loving elite feasting on the plunder of an enormous bureaucracy.

The reason both Republicans and Democrats fear the Tea Party movement is because its members aren’t from the club. Many of the policies that are quietly agreed upon by the current cast of characters still in power during the lame duck session will be radioactive after January, when the Tea Party representatives arrive.

Case in point: amnesty for illegal aliens. Masquerading under the positive sounding name of “the Dream Act,” is a piece of legislation that will reward law-breaking with the highly prized gift of US citizenship and all the benefits forthwith.

One of the champions of amnesty, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell, may have unintentionally summed it all up last Thursday when she ranted: "I've been in the Senate since 2001, and I just remember Republicans being passionate about it [the Dream Act] and sponsoring the bill. One of the most passionate speeches I heard was Orrin Hatch in the Judiciary Committee."

Cantwell went on to say that in the past, "Republicans were so supportive of it,” and now she is at a loss to understand why some of these former amnesty champions are suddenly opposed to the DREAM Act.

No, Cantwell is not living in some dream-land. She’s right. While it goes without saying that part of the reason for this reversal of opinion by some Republicans is due to the message that patriotic Americans sent our elected officials last month, the sad and unfortunate truth is that far too many Republican Senators have supported amnesty in the past and may still secretly support amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. A number of them will look for any excuse to support it again. According to a report released by Michelle Malkin just before Thanksgiving, at least five GOP Senators "haven’t made up their mind on whether they should oppose a bill that amounts to a 2.1 million future Democrat voter recruitment drive."

For the record, at that time, those Republican Senators were John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Sam Brownback. And, of course, there are a number of Republican Senators who supported amnesty (the Dream Act) in the recent past such as, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, George Lemieux, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch.

Simply put, the Dream Act is a nightmare of epic proportions, and it is a back-door amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

Mark Krikorian, writing for National Review Online, gives us two important reasons to oppose the Dream Act. First, this incredibly poorly thought-out bill will simply encourage more people to enter the United States illegally.

Sound like deja vu? That's because it is. We've already been down this road before. In 1986, with the passage of Simpson-Mazzoli, we granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in exchange for the false promise that we would put a stop to the flood of illegal aliens coming into the United States. Today, after supposedly stopping the flood of illegal aliens coming into this country back in '86, there are now 12-20 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

Of course, the biggest irony here is that the Dream Act is nothing more than a Trojan-horse attempt to grant amnesty to those who came to the United States illegally, by first giving amnesty to their children. After the passage of Simpson-Mazolli, which was supposed to stop massive amounts of illegal aliens from coming into the country, the problem mushroomed.

Speaking of Simpson-Mazolli and ironies, Krikorian continues: "Perhaps one-fourth of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground."

Some of these corporate stooge Republicans love illegal immigration because it keeps wages depressed across America. Profits, to these big business Republicans, are more important than living wage jobs. The false Dream Act (back-door amnesty for millions of illegal aliens,) can only pass the US Senate with Republican support.

Let’s hope they heard the message of November and stop this lame duck madness

The American Dream: Pro and Con

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


--Emma Lazarus

"The New Colossus"

Inscription on the Statue of Liberty

      It's the rational, fair, humane and, perhaps most of all, patriotic solution to just one aspect of the vast challenge represented by the millions of illegal immigrants in this country. It's called the DREAM Act, and it would allow young people brought into this country illegally but reared as Americans to get on a path to citizenship -- if they enroll in college or join the armed services.

Makes sense. For these students represent human capital, the most precious kind. Educated, trained, allowed to flourish, they would contribute to America's strength rather become another problem. Who knows what one of them might accomplish someday? Together, they represent a mighty promise.

      But the whole question of illegal immigration is political dynamite, and savvy politicians have been avoiding it for years, afraid to offend those who would rather fight the problem than solve it. ("What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand?") Anger is no solution, but there will always be those ready to embrace it, and politicians willing to appease them -- the sort more interested in reflecting public opinion than leading it.

      The two senators from Arkansas exemplify the split over the DREAM Act. In their own way, each is also taking a stand on the American Dream itself, pro and con:

Blanche Lincoln, soon to be the former senior senator from Arkansas, was one of the act's cosponsors and continues to support it. Having been defeated for re-election, she has nothing to lose politically by holding fast to principle. She can afford to ignore the demagoguery that surrounds this issue and just do the right thing.

      But the junior senator from Arkansas, Mark Pryor, is bowing to the forces of fear. He's come out against the DREAM Act. It's hard to imagine that he could look one of these kids in the eye and say: "Yes, I understand you were raised here, went to school here, studied hard and now you want to go to college or serve your country in uniform, just like the American you are in fact if not law. But we're going to deny you a college education anyway."

That's the message Sen. Pryor is sending these young people, and it's a toss-up whether his stand is more unfair or un-American. So much for this being the Land of Opportunity.

Politics may be a low sport, but that doesn't mean it's not educational -- especially when it comes to judging the character of those who take it up. There are those who don't hesitate to jettison principle when it becomes inconvenient, and those who will not abandon it even though it might cost them an election. Which may be why concession speeches say so much more about the character of candidates than any victory statement.

When it comes to debating American immigration in all its facets, legal and illegal being only the most obvious these days, there are those who can look back and learn from the past, and those who can't see beyond the political calculus of the next election.

There are those who can see how each successive wave of immigrants has strengthened the country no matter the hysteria it originally unleashed, and those swept away by an irrational fear of the latest newcomers, these strangers in a strange land. They look at a young Hispanic just out of an American high school and eager to get on with life, whether in school or in the service, and they can see only a threat. Instead of a promise. The kind of promise on which this country was built and the American Dream launched.

Obama to Bring Back Amnesty for Illegal Aliens – SOON

This week Obama made darn sure Hispanics know he is going to bring back the Amnesty for Illegal Aliens bill. Sure, it will have a slick sounding name like “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” but it will include amnesty for those 12+ million illegal aliens or “undocumented democrats” as some are now referring to them.


Referring to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, while speaking to a group of Hispanics (the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute) just this week, Obama is reported to have said: "But let me be clear: I will not walk away from this fight. My commitment is getting this done as soon as we can. We can't keep kicking this challenge down the road."

Of course, Obama blamed the republicans for the delay in amnesty for illegal aliens. In our opinion, the GOP should be proud of that accusation and take credit for it. In the case of amnesty for illegal aliens, the GOP ought not just be the “party of NO, but the party of HELL NO!


Mr. Obama reportedly told the Hispanics gathered at the meeting: "But don't forget who is standing with you, and who is standing against you. Don't ever believe that this election coming up doesn't matter. ... Don't forget who your friends are."


We can assure the President WE LEGAL American citizens will not forget which political party is attempting to shove amnesty for illegal aliens down OUR throats!
Time to get the e-mail humming to your Senators again. Phone calls work well, too. Faxes are also important.

Even a telegram to your senator’s office would be helpful. I have asked this before and I will ask it again: Isn’t there something very sad (and very telling) when the people of a country have to “force” their own government to respond to the wishes of their people? Isn’t it telling as to how far we have traveled down the road toward “totalitarian government”? Have we learned anything??? That question will be answered in November.

“Once more, into the breach,” conservatives!!! Basically, Americans STILL want the border closed and sealed FIRST! It is common sense to stop the leak in the breached dam we call the border. Once the border is closed and sealed then taking care of those aliens here illegally can begin and, I hope, mass deportations can begin.


The really sad aspect of this whole calamity with the flood of illegal aliens is that none of this would be necessary – if -- the federal government would just enforce the immigration laws already on the books. But they are not going to do that and they will make every effort they feel they must to stop any sovereign state from protecting itself, and its fellow Americans, by enforcing the law.


We are all aware of how the federal government has brought the hammer down on the people of the sovereign state of Arizona for just making an attempt to enforce US law. All of America learned exactly how Obama and his fellow socialist-liberals feel about state sovereignty and how quick they are to use the mailed fist of a dictatorial government to smash any resistance to their socialist agenda.


Yes, Americans ARE angry with the illegal alien mess and the numerous attempts by our government to offer them amnesty, which would, in time, offer them citizenship. It is the wrong answer to a question that never should have come up. It wouldn’t have – had the federal government been doing its job.


As I wrote in an article some years back: “Those of you who support open borders do not, I repeat, do not try to beat us about the head and shoulders with the old saw that says America is a nation of immigrants. See, we already know that because our ancestors were immigrants, too. Mine came into the country, legally, in 1789 through what was then Charles Town Harbor and were assigned a place in the 96th precinct of the state of South Carolina. Notice - they came into this country LEGALLY! That is all we expect of any who want to immigrate to America. Do it legally and we will welcome you with open arms. Do it illegally and we want you caught and deported forthwith!”


Americans have to ask themselves an important question -- and that is … what do we do with a government that refuses to uphold/enforce the nation’s laws? Allow me to answer that by asking this: Suppose you had a business and an employee consistently refused to follow the rules of your workplace. What would you do to that employee? See? The answer is simple. The ONLY way we are ever going to get relief from this problem is to clean the house in Washington.


I refer often to my very intelligent and insightful friend, Alan Caruba. Some time back, in an article entitled “A Crisis of Governors” Alan said the following: “What, in fact, Americans are witnessing is a failure of government at both the state and federal level. The nation has managed to elect too many people to public office that are so clearly inept, incompetent, and untrustworthy, it poses a threat to the republic.”


There is no arguing with the rock solid logic of that statement. Alan, as usual, is spot on. I have said this before and I will say it again, loud and clear: America’s most dangerous enemy, at the moment, is its own government! Sad to say -- it was through the ignorance of the American electorate that these pitifully inept politicians were elected to office to begin with.


America is a big country. When we act, we act big. When we make mistakes – oh, we really screw-up – and in a BIG way. As most Americans now know, electing a Democratic Party controlled Congress in 2006 was a BIG mistake and electing Obama in 2008 was an even BIGGER mistake. Now America is paying the awful price for allowing emotions to drive the election of the first black President of the United States.


We’d like to think that maybe a third party working hard over decades could turn it around, but frankly, I have come to believe that is a long way down the road. I sometimes think Americans are so woefully ignorant of how a representative republic is supposed to work that I have serious doubts we are capable of doing that which is necessary to save our country.


The Tea Party Movement shows promise in the fight to educate Americans about how their government is supposed to work. To say the candidates they have backed over the primary season have been surprisingly victorious would be an understatement. I feel compelled to tell you that I suspect that if their strength continues to grow they will, of necessity, become the political party in America that shoves an evermore moderate GOP off center stage and into the wings and eventually into the pages of history as another “has been” political party that could not find the will to represent their constituents the way those constituents demanded. They got away with it for a while. But those days have now ended.


Until we can come up with a solution to the problem of an unresponsive government we are stuck standing on the sidelines observing the huge land invasion from our neighbor to the south with the assistance of the Obama Regime and its fellow socialist-liberals in the Congress of the United States.

Arizona, Borderlands and U.S.-Mexican Relations

Arizona's new law on illegal immigration went into effect last week, albeit severely limited by a federal court ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court undoubtedly will settle the matter, which may also trigger federal regulations. However that turns out, the entire issue cannot simply be seen as an internal American legal matter. More broadly, it forms part of the relations between the United States and Mexico, two sovereign nation-states whose internal dynamics and interests are leading them into an era of increasing tension. Arizona and the entire immigration issue have to be viewed in this broader context.

Until the Mexican-American War, it was not clear whether the dominant power in North America would have its capital in Washington or Mexico City. Mexico was the older society with a substantially larger military. The United States, having been founded east of the Appalachian Mountains, had been a weak and vulnerable country. At its founding, it lacked strategic depth and adequate north-south transportation routes. The ability of one colony to support another in the event of war was limited. More important, the United States had the most vulnerable of economies: It was heavily dependent on maritime exports and lacked a navy able to protect its sea-lanes against more powerful European powers like England and Spain. The War of 1812 showed the deep weakness of the United States. By contrast, Mexico had greater strategic depth and less dependence on exports.

The Centrality of New Orleans

The American solution to this strategic weakness was to expand the United States west of the Appalachians, first into the Northwest Territory ceded to the United States by the United Kingdom and then into the Louisiana Purchase, which Thomas Jefferson ordered bought from France. These two territories gave the United States both strategic depth and a new economic foundation. The regions could support agriculture that produced more than the farmers could consume. Using the Ohio-Missouri-Mississippi river system, products could be shipped south to New Orleans. New Orleans was the farthest point south to which flat-bottomed barges from the north could go, and the farthest inland that ocean-going ships could travel. New Orleans became the single most strategic point in North America. Whoever controlled it controlled the agricultural system developing between the Appalachians and the Rockies. During the War of 1812, the British tried to seize New Orleans, but forces led by Andrew Jackson defeated them in a battle fought after the war itself was completed.

Jackson understood the importance of New Orleans to the United States. He also understood that the main threat to New Orleans came from Mexico. The U.S.-Mexican border then stood on the Sabine River, which divides today's Texas from Louisiana. It was about 200 miles from that border to New Orleans and, at its narrowest point, a little more than 100 miles from the Sabine to the Mississippi.

Mexico therefore represented a fundamental threat to the United States. In response, Jackson authorized a covert operation under Sam Houston to foment an uprising among American settlers in the Mexican department of Texas with the aim of pushing Mexico farther west. With its larger army, a Mexican thrust to the Mississippi was not impossible - nor something the Mexicans would necessarily avoid, as the rising United States threatened Mexican national security.

Mexico's strategic problem was the geography south of the Rio Grande (known in Mexico as the Rio Bravo). This territory consisted of desert and mountains. Settling this area with large populations was impossible. Moving through it was difficult. As a result, Texas was very lightly settled with Mexicans, prompting Mexico initially to encourage Americans to settle there. Once a rising was fomented among the Americans, it took time and enormous effort to send a Mexican army into Texas. When it arrived, it was weary from the journey and short of supplies. The insurgents were defeated at the Alamo and Goliad, but as the Mexicans pushed their line east toward the Mississippi, they were defeated at San Jacinto, near present-day Houston.

The creation of an independent Texas served American interests, relieving the threat to New Orleans and weakening Mexico. The final blow was delivered under President James K. Polk during the Mexican-American War, which (after the Gadsden Purchase) resulted in the modern U.S.-Mexican border. That war severely weakened both the Mexican army and Mexico City, which spent roughly the rest of the century stabilizing Mexico's original political order.

A Temporary Resolution

The U.S. defeat of Mexico settled the issue of the relative power of Mexico and the United States but did not permanently resolve the region's status; that remained a matter of national power and will. The United States had the same problem with much of the Southwest (aside from California) that Mexico had: It was a relatively unattractive place economically, given that so much of it was inhospitable. The region experienced chronic labor shortages, relatively minor at first but accelerating over time. The acquisition of relatively low-cost labor became one of the drivers of the region's economy, and the nearest available labor pool was Mexico. An accelerating population movement out of Mexico and into the territory the United States seized from Mexico paralleled the region's accelerating economic growth.

The United States and Mexico both saw this as mutually beneficial. From the American point of view, there was a perpetual shortage of low-cost, low-end labor in the region. From the Mexican point of view, Mexico had a population surplus that the Mexican economy could not readily metabolize. The inclination of the United States to pull labor north was thus matched by the inclination of Mexico to push that labor north.

The Mexican government built its social policy around the idea of exporting surplus labor - and as important, using remittances from immigrants to stabilize the Mexican economy. The U.S. government, however, wanted an outcome that was illegal under U.S. law. At times, the federal government made exceptions to the law. When it lacked the political ability to change the law, the United States put limits on the resources needed to enforce the law. The rest of the country didn't notice this process while the former Mexican borderlands benefited from it economically. There were costs to the United States in this immigrant movement, in health care, education and other areas, but business interests saw these as minor costs while Washington saw them as costs to be borne by the states.

Three fault lines emerged in United States on the topic. One was between the business classes, which benefited directly from the flow of immigrants and could shift the cost of immigration to other social sectors, and those who did not enjoy those benefits. The second lay between the federal government, which saw the costs as trivial, and the states, which saw them as intensifying over time. And third, there were tensions between Mexican-American citizens and other American citizens over the question of illegal migrants. This inherently divisive, potentially explosive mix intensified as the process continued.

Borderlands and the Geopolitics of Immigration

Underlying this political process was a geopolitical one. Immigration in any country is destabilizing. Immigrants have destabilized the United States ever since the Scots-Irish changed American culture, taking political power and frightening prior settlers. The same immigrants were indispensable to economic growth. Social and cultural instability proved a low price to pay for the acquisition of new labor.

That equation ultimately also works in the case of Mexican migrants, but there is a fundamental difference. When the Irish or the Poles or the South Asians came to the United States, they were physically isolated from their homelands. The Irish might have wanted Roman Catholic schools, but in the end, they had no choice but to assimilate into the dominant culture. The retention of cultural hangovers did not retard basic cultural assimilation, given that they were far from home and surrounded by other, very different, groups.

This is the case for Mexican-Americans in Chicago or Alaska, whether citizens, permanent residents or illegal immigrants. In such locales, they form a substantial but ultimately isolated group, surrounded by other, larger groups and generally integrated into the society and economy. Success requires that subsequent generations follow the path of prior immigrants and integrate. This is not the case, however, for Mexicans moving into the borderlands conquered by the United States just as it is not the case in other borderlands around the world. Immigrant populations in this region are not physically separated from their homeland, but rather can be seen as culturally extending their homeland northward - in this case not into alien territory, but into historically Mexican lands.

This is no different from what takes place in borderlands the world over. The political border moves because of war. Members of an alien population suddenly become citizens of a new country. Sometimes, massive waves of immigrants from the group that originally controlled the territory politically move there, undertaking new citizenship or refusing to do so. The cultural status of the borderland shifts between waves of ethnic cleansing and population movement. Politics and economics mix, sometimes peacefully and sometimes explosively.

The Mexican-American War established the political boundary between the two countries. Economic forces on both sides of the border have encouraged both legal and illegal immigration north into the borderland - the area occupied by the United States. The cultural character of the borderland is shifting as the economic and demographic process accelerates. The political border stays where it is while the cultural border moves northward.

The underlying fear of those opposing this process is not economic (although it is frequently expressed that way), but much deeper: It is the fear that the massive population movement will ultimately reverse the military outcome of the 1830s and 1840s, returning the region to Mexico culturally or even politically. Such borderland conflicts rage throughout the world. The fear is that it will rage here.

The problem is that Mexicans are not seen in the traditional context of immigration to the United States. As I have said, some see them as extending their homeland into the United States, rather than as leaving their homeland and coming to the United States. Moreover, by treating illegal immigration as an acceptable mode of immigration, a sense of helplessness is created, a feeling that the prior order of society was being profoundly and illegally changed. And finally, when those who express these concerns are demonized, they become radicalized. The tension between Washington and Arizona - between those who benefit from the migration and those who don't - and the tension between Mexican-Americans who are legal residents and citizens of the United States and support illegal immigration and non-Mexicans who oppose illegal immigration creates a potentially explosive situation.

Centuries ago, Scots moved to Northern Ireland after the English conquered it. The question of Northern Ireland, a borderland, was never quite settled. Similarly, Albanians moved to now-independent Kosovo, where tensions remain high. The world is filled with borderlands where political and cultural borders don't coincide and where one group wants to change the political border that another group sees as sacred.

Migration to the United States is a normal process. Migration into the borderlands from Mexico is not. The land was seized from Mexico by force, territory now experiencing a massive national movement - legal and illegal - changing the cultural character of the region. It should come as no surprise that this is destabilizing the region, as instability naturally flows from such forces.

Jewish migration to modern-day Israel represents a worst-case scenario for borderlands. An absence of stable political agreements undergirding this movement characterized this process. One of the characteristics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mutual demonization. In the case of Arizona, demonization between the two sides also runs deep. The portrayal of supporters of Arizona's new law as racist and the characterization of critics of that law as un-American is neither new nor promising. It is the way things would sound in a situation likely to get out of hand.

Ultimately, this is not about the Arizona question. It is about the relationship between Mexico and the United States on a range of issues, immigration merely being one of them. The problem as I see it is that the immigration issue is being treated as an internal debate among Americans when it is really about reaching an understanding with Mexico. Immigration has been treated as a sub national issue involving individuals. It is in fact a geopolitical issue between two nation-states. Over the past decades, Washington has tried to avoid turning immigration into an international matter, portraying it rather as an American law enforcement issue. In my view, it cannot be contained in that box any longer