ANACHRONISTS PELOSI AND SCHUMER DON’T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW, THE ‘WILL’ OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OR KEEPING AMERICA SAFE!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
ANACHRONISTS PELOSI AND SCHUMER DON’T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW, THE ‘WILL’ OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OR KEEPING AMERICA SAFE!

Time to realized that America will not survive being divided, let alone being divided by an unconstitutional President whose whole reason to live was to use his Cloward and Piven strategies to divide and conquer on his way to destroying America from within! But don't fear, the Obama hangover is wearing off, and as the days begin to get brighter, Americans are slowly waking up to the beat of a positive and enthusiastic future, and not the continuation of Obama’s political correct oppression and reign of Socialist terror! Positive things are happening now, and with the shocking new Harvard-Harris poll showing 80% of voters are opposed to sanctuary cities and 75% want increased border patrols, and then having the majority of voters also supporting Trump's travel ban and are opposed to bringing in so many refugees, you got to be feeling better than good, but great like the future of America under the Trump Presidency for the next 4-8 years!

THERE’S A CHINK IN THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT’S ARMOR, AND AMERICA IS BEGINNING TO MAKE THE 'NEW' TRUMP AMERICA WORK!

MIAMI-DADE MAYOR ORDERS JAILS TO COMPLY WITH TRUMP CRACKDOWN ON ‘SANCTUARY’ COUNTIES!

Fearing a loss of millions of dollars for defying immigration authorities, Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez on Thursday ordered county jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests — effectively gutting the county’s position as a “sanctuary” for immigrants in the country illegally.

IRS MOVES TO REVOKE PASSORTS FOR UNPAID TAXES!

President Trump's executive order on travel may be generating big protests, but an IRS missive on travel and passports may not go down too well either. More than a year ago, in H.R.22, Congress gave the IRS a new weapon to collect taxes. Tax code Section 7345 is labeled, “Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Tax Delinquencies.” The law isn't limited to criminal tax cases, or even cases where the IRS thinks you are trying to flee. The idea of the law is to use travel as a way to enforce tax collections. It was proposed and rejected in 2012. But by late 2015, Congress passed it and President Obama signed it.

Now, over a year later, the IRS has finally released new details on its website. If you have seriously delinquent tax debt, IRS can notify the State Department. The State Department generally will not issue or renew a passport after receiving certification from the IRS. The IRS has not yet started certifying tax debt to the State Department. The IRS says certifications will begin in early 2017, and the IRS website will be updated to indicate when this process has been implemented.

Chuck-e keeps barking up the wrong tree, and with his last comments on the awaited new Executive Order, is again just showing the lawlessness of the leadership of the quickly becoming irrelevant in the common-sense eyes of America’s classical liberals! I guess Chuck-e believes in the lawless path these anarchists are taking when breaking the laws of the land by silencing peaceful gatherings and Townhall meetings that are Constitutionally warranted! Trump’s simple, and early in his campaign message, was to just enforce the laws of the land, and nothing more!

Obama was unconstitutionally allowed to lead this country for 8 years because of the Constitution’s citizenship requirement, but when you think about it, the bipartisan ‘swamp’ had to have agreed to look the other way for this traitorous unconstitutionally action to come to fruition, and now when you have a President who wants to enforce the laws that Obama had no interest enforcing, the Progressive left is calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Bill O’Reilly said "The Founding Fathers gave us specific freedoms so we could tell you how the people in power were behaving. But when the press aligns itself with a political movement, in this case liberalism, then it is no longer objective or free,” and If it weren’t for the ‘Paid to Report’ Media taking ‘one’ side and supporting the anarchists in their anti-constitutional financially supported rage, then the silent majority, who kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House, could come out from hiding and openly take back our country. By the continued actions of the Progressive left’s leadership of Pelosi and Schumer, you have to believe more and more liberals that still believe in America and America’s constitution are jumping ship to either become independent, or to jump on board the Trump train to help make America great again!

By giving the reigns to Pelosi and Schumer to lead the ‘New’ Progressive Socialist Party and doubling down on Obama’s and Hillary’s Alinsky beliefs, you have to be asking yourself where are the young new talent of the Party that believed in the old rules, traditions, and aspirations of the old guard, and not the 'New' version that supports and backs anarchy and lawlessness! New ideas, new leadership, young blood and following the constitution are the things needed to lead and change the course of the Party’s identity and direction which is needed now more then ever to be relevant and respected for a future their constituency can get behind, again!

In the 2018 midterms Democrats are defending 23 seats in the Senate, and if they were the same Democrats with the same beliefs prior to the Obama takeover 8 years ago, they might have a shot, a long shot, but with 10 of those states being won by President Donald Trump during the election, and the parties continued disconnect with their loyal to America base who still believe in the constitution and the rule of law, it doesn’t look good!

With Trump spending about half of what the Hillary campaign did to get elected it appears that the only thing on the Progressive Left’s mind that means anything at all, is about the money and getting money from anyone that has an agenda that is not in line with our founding fathers or our constitution. ``This New York Democrat, who as minority leader coordinates Senate Democratic campaigns, will be able to raise enough campaign cash to support the long list of seats that must be defended. During the 2016, Schumer raised nearly $180 million, but it was not enough to avoid picking winners and losers.

“IT’S BETTER TO HAVE TRIED AND FAILED THAN NOT TO HAVE TRIED AT ALL”

I keep seeing memes that point out Trump’s business failures, but when I think of these two career politicians, Pelosi and Schumer, I see their career political accomplishments and successes are only shown to justify the taxpayer’s expenditures to save their own jobs. These two flip flopping record changes with the wind, and in the direction of the special interests of the donor! I know, and you should also,  that there is no way they would have had just one success in business in the private sector, especially with their stellar political career of sitting on the fence until the next political donor reared their traitorous head!

Trump was a dreamer, and sometimes, or maybe a lot of times, lost, but with hard work and perseverance he finally made it, and by making I meant achieving the American Dream! How many companies out there didn’t start with an idea from one man? How many times have there been bumps in the road of these individual dreamers but worked hard and persevered to get through those hard times? So, my dilemma is that when these individuals make it big the ‘have not’s’ want to take it from them under the guise it that it doesn’t belong to them and belongs to the masses who only sit by with their hand out who have no need or want to work, let alone work hard and persevere, to achieve their own American Dream!

I think with just over a month into the outsider nonpolitician Trump Presidency that you have to reevaluate your position when it comes to the future of America, and the future of your children and their children’s future. Are you going to back the ‘rule of law,’ or the anarchists that are running rampant and denying Americans their constitutional rights by shutting down town halls and get togethers to express their same constitutional 1^st amendments rights which the anarchists hide behind when causing chaos! These anarchists are being funded by outsider interests that don’t have the ‘Will’ of the American people foremost in their minds! America has created its own problems by allowing Obama to bypass our laws and then using political correctness to adjust who we believed we were and are, but then added implicit bias to let you know it wasn’t our fault but the fault of your parents because of their belief structure that they imposed on your blank slate when you were born.

If you are a patriotic democrat that believes in the rule of law and the constitution, you don’t have to be a team player on the progressive left’s team of anarchists who don’t believe in the rule of law or America’s constitution! So, what side of the left do you want to be associated with?

 LIBERALISM VS. PROGRESSIVISM

Since its emergence in the 19th century, classical liberalism has principally advocated that every individual has the natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that the function of government is to protect these rights. As the result of their belief in Lockean natural rights, classical liberals have been strong proponents of individual liberty in the political, social, and economic spheres.

In the economic realm, classical liberals advocate the free market economy, because, as noted by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “unless people are free to make contracts and to sell their labour, or unless they are free to save their incomes and then invest them as they see fit, or unless they are free to run enterprises when they have obtained the capital, they are not really free.” In the political and social realms, classical liberals have been the greatest advocates of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and so on.

In contrast, progressive liberalism principally advocates egalitarianism and ‘social justice.’ Progressive liberals believe themselves to be defenders of minorities and the downtrodden. They seek to eliminate society of political, social, and economic inequalities. Seemingly, this is a distinction without a difference, as one can advocate both liberty and equality simultaneously. However, there is a substantive difference between classical and progressive liberals, and it comes down to what they believe the role of government is.

By definition, the state is effectively a legal monopoly on the use of force. No private individual, business, or organization can compel anyone to do anything against their will, but the state can. Classical liberals consequently see the state as, at best, a necessary evil whose coercive powers should be utilized as infrequently as possible. In stark contrast, progressive liberals believe in utilizing the state frequently and extensively as a means to force society to change in accordance with egalitarian principles.

The differences between classical and progressive liberals can be illustrated through how they believe the government should respond to a number of socioeconomic issues. Consider income inequality. A classical liberal who wishes for a more equitable income distribution would encourage the wealthy to donate their money to those in need.

On the other hand, a progressive will use the state to forcefully confiscate, via confiscatory taxation, money away from the wealthy individuals who earned it and then redistribute to the poor while congratulating themselves on their selflessness and castigating the person they stole from as greedy if they raised any objections.

Also consider social welfare schemes like social security, a program devised by progressives which all workers are forced, by the government, to pay a considerable percentage of their income to in order to ensure all said workers are able to retiree when they are older. Progressives love this system so much that they are adamantly opposed to the classical liberal proposition of allowing workers to opt out of it so that they can manage their own money as they see fit.

When Christian bakers in Oregon refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violated their religious beliefs, they were sued and forced to pay $135,000 in compensation to the couple for discrimination. Classical liberals lamented this outcome, as they don’t believe that people should be forced, by law, to associate with others against their will, with rare exceptions. But progressive liberals, on the other hand, celebrated. In their minds, forcing people to act in accordance with their social justice ideology is perfectly fine, and not doing so actually constitutes a crime.

Lastly, consider freedom of speech. While classical liberals will denounce racists but nonetheless support their right to speak, progressives have become increasingly supportive of using the government to censor opinions they disapprove of. The majority of democrats, for example, now support a law which would make hate speech a punishable crime and 35% of them think that statements which are offensive to minorities should be censored by the government (compared to 18% of Republicans.)

In nearly every case, progressive liberals are more likely to support using the coercive power of the state to force society to be structured according to their will, and yet somehow, they see themselves as good and just for doing so.

Most classical liberals personally hold all the values progressives do. They believe that racism and sexism are terrible and wish them to be banished from society. They wish for an end to inequality, and so on. But they do not believe that just because they personally think a rich man should give his money to the poor, he must be compelled to do so under penalty of lawful retribution. Nor do they believe that Christian bakers should be forced to serve gay couples, against their will. Nor do they believe racists should have their speech censored, even though what they say is toxic.

Classical liberals believe that society should avoid using coercive institutions, like the state, in order to change itself for the better. Instead, open debate, social pressures, and other voluntary means should be used to promote societal progress. A free society should utilize coercion as little as possible. Classical Liberals believe that is the morally just position, not the one taken by many progressives. ~~By Matt Palumbo, a Friend of America!

BARACK OBAMA AND THE STRATEGY OF MANUFACTURED CRISIS!

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis!

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

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.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

1.The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.

2.The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.

3.The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their "rights." According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, "one person was on the welfare rolls... for every two working in the city's private economy."

According to another City Journal article titled "Compassion Gone Mad":

The movement's impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay's first two years; spending doubled... The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO's Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for "an effort at economic sabotage." He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals' threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever-increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven's thrill that "...the drain on local resources persists indefinitely."  ~~By James Simpson, a Friend of America!

With the current threat of Facebook's feckless ability to be bipartisan, feel free to befriend me at 'Jonathan E P Moore' to get direct and instant access, or follow 'While You Were Sleeping' at www.whileyouweredozing.blogspot.com Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter, and Google Plus, and PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.