REGISTERING THE POOR TO VOTE IS UN-AMERICAN

Un-American? There is an abstract definition by a guy that would seemingly prefer the poor to be enslavened to the desires of the rich. I wonder how many generations we need to go back in Matthew's family until we find them forcing honourable African-American people into slavery. I'm tipping not very far. Did Matthew's forebears justify their racist activities with the same ham-fisted logic employed by Matthew in this hate filled diatribe disguised as an article? It is also worth noting that this headline is a presumptive opinion, presented as a fact -the first of many- which serves as a reminder that it is not only the Government/Courts/Police that present presumptive opinion as if it is factual, the media do it very effectively as well, whether it be radio, tv or print. This is why it is important to do your research, learn about the world you live in, support independent media outlets & do not allow your servants to use force & unrebutted contracts to force you into submission.
September 1, 2011 By Matthew Vadum & Michael Byers, Mikiverse Politics Editor-In-Chief

Why are left-wing activist groups so keen on registering the poor to vote? Presumptive opinion #2.

Because they know the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits -Presumptive opinion #3- by electing redistributionist politicians -Presumptive opinion #4-. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery-Presumptive opinion #5- .

Apparently, whilst it wrong for the poor to vote in a self-interested manner, this belief isn't extended to the rich & the elites. Matthew apparently believes in distinct classes of people, and that there should particular laws for each. Maybe he believes that the poor should drink from 'poor only' drinking fountains & the like.

This is a reproduction of the neo-con economic/political philosophy that has resulted in tens -if not hundreds- of thousands of people being tortured & murdered around the world since the implementation of the Straussian/Friedman 'Chicago School of Economics' neo-con agenda.

Registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. -Presumptive opinion #6- It is profoundly antisocial-Presumptive opinion #7- and un-American-Presumptive opinion #8 again with the 'Un-American' abstract- to empower the nonproductive -Presumptive opinion #9- segments of the population to destroy the country -Presumptive opinion #10- -- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote-Presumptive opinion #11-.

To find more debasing, dehumanising, barbaric language than this previous paragraph means that you will need to consult racist, misogynist homophobic publications. Easy to comprehend how people like Matthew have translated these perverse philosophies into acts of violence all over the world across the annals of time.

QUESTION: Do you think this conservative opinion is more in accord with Dick Cheney or Ron Paul?

A decade before the Motor-Voter law that required states to register voters at welfare offices was enacted, NAACP official Joe Madison explained the political economy of voter registration drives.

Similar to holocaust denial sites using David Cole, and, Australian conservative 'writers' using 'Unions', this writer attempts to use an NAACP official to lend legitamicy to a illegitamite cause.

"When people are standing in line to get cheese and butter or unemployment compensation, you don't have to tell them how to vote," said Madison, now a radio talk show host in Washington, D.C. "They know how to vote."

Is it not a self-evident truth that people know how to vote in accordance with their beliefs? I'll illustrate it this way:

"When people are standing in their mansions waiting for the staff to fetch Beluga Caviar and Armand-de Brignac Champagne or a polished pair of Berlutti's, you don't have to tell them how to vote," said Madison, now a radio talk show host in Washington, D.C. "They know how to vote."

Like Madison, Barack Obama grasped this basic truth when he worked for ACORN's Project Vote affiliate in 1992.

"All our people must know that politics and voting affects their lives directly," the future president said. "If we're registering people in public housing, for an example, we talk about aid cuts and who's responsible."

Encouraging those who burden society -Presumptive opinion #12- to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor-Presumptive opinion #13- . It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money-Presumptive opinion #14- . It's about raw so-called social justice-Presumptive opinion #15- . It's about moving America ever farther away from the small-government ideals of the Founding Fathers-Presumptive opinion #15-.

I call this offensive diatribe: 'how to alienate people from libertarian politics by pretending to be a Libertarian spouting outrageous and offensive lies'. It is also trying tink the Founding Fathers in with his offensive opinions. I'm fairly certain that neither Libertarian's, nor the Founding Fathers hated poor people.

Registering the unproductive to vote -Presumptive opinion #16- is an idea that was heavily promoted by the small-c communists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, as I write in my new book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

In an infamous 1966 Nation -Infamous, because the article begins with the question; "How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty?" How dare the poor wish to be anything other than poor? The answer of course is that the poor cannot be exploited by the rich and the elite if they can provide for themselves, and to provide for themselves they need the tools to do so- magazine article, the radical university professors urged that the welfare apparatus be used to destroy the American system. Borrowing a phrase the ultra-leftist Leon Trotsky used in one of his many anti-Stalin tracts, The Platform of the Joint Opposition (1927), they titled their blueprint for radical change "The Weight of the Poor."

If Matthew is anti Leon Trotsky, and, Leon Trotsky is anti-Stalin, does this infer or mean that Matthew is pro-Stalin? Is he aligned with David Rockefeller who promoted Mao Tse Tung and Chinese Communism in the New York Times around 1973.

By "weight," Cloward, Piven, and Trotsky meant power or influence -Presumptive opinion #17- . All three wanted to use the poor as a battering ram against the systems they sought to overthrow -Presumptive opinion #18- As opposed to Matthew who merely wants them enslavened and dependent on him & his rich mates living bereft of economic & political rights, and virtually unable to change their circumstances unless they can entertain these arrogant elites via staged competitions like boxing or basketball.

Trotsky thought too many bureaucrats and middle-class people were involved in the Soviet Communist Party and that it was moving too slowly in its efforts to change that society. He wanted more poor people in the party in order to overthrow Stalin's obstructionist bureaucracy and clear the way for "true" communism.

Stateside, Cloward and Piven wanted to use the "weight" of the poor to bring down American capitalism and democracy. Yet as it transpires, it is Matthew & his elitist friends that have killed the American economy via the artificial manipulation of currency which is bringing about a dystopic socialist nightmare that is getting worse & worse by design so they can introduce 'the cure' via the political/economic shock doctrine, or therapy which has only served to heighten the gap between rich & the poor EVERYWHERE it has been introduced.

Whilst Matthew is happy to wield the dreaded 'Communist' threat in a similar manner to the politicised 'Anti-Semite' stick, the reality is that Matthew is advocating a return to the feudal system of Master/Servant relationships.

Which class do you think Matthew is from?

These apostles of depravity proposed swamping the welfare rolls of states and localities by encouraging people to exercise their welfare "rights" by applying for public benefits. The theory was that newly cash-strapped state and local governments would demand a bailout from Congress. The fiscal rescue package would take the form of a European-style guaranteed annual income scheme that would drive America well down the road to full-blown socialism.

Enlisting the organizing expertise of Saul Alinsky and other veteran community organizers, Cloward and Piven created ACORN's parent organization, the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), to execute their plan.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy almost succeeded.

Liberal Republican governors such as New York's Nelson Rockefeller and Michigan's George Romney quickly surrendered under steady assault from NWRO organizers. Burgeoning welfare caseloads brought New York City to the brink of bankruptcy in the 1970s, a fact acknowledged two decades later by then-mayor Rudy Giuliani.

This looks like an assault on Rockefeller & Romney until we see that they only 'surrendered' because they were assaulted. Fortunately, 9/11 stool pidgeon Rudy Giuliani is on hand to offer economic clarity.

Giuliani blamed the "perverted social philosophy" of Cloward and Piven. "New York City viewed welfare as a good thing, as a wonderful thing. They romanticized it and embraced a philosophy of dependency."

Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, political support grew for a guaranteed annual income plan. President Nixon supported the proposal and it came within a hair's breadth of passing Congress in 1972.

The movement was aided by Goldberg v. Kelly, a monstrously wrongheaded piece of judge-made law. In the landmark 1970 decision, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 that the "brutal need" of a poor welfare recipient outweighed society's interest in trying to prevent welfare fraud.

Goldberg stated that welfare recipients were entitled to an evidentiary hearing before an impartial decision-maker at which they could call and confront witnesses. They were also entitled to receive a written, reasoned opinion before being deprived of benefits.

As you can see, the idea of poor people having the right to vote, and an opporunity to defend their position in a court that acts on the presumption of innocence and affords them the same litigational opportunities as Matthew and his elitist mates is confrontational & shocking. This is co-incidentally the same impertinent attitude displayed by many judges across the world when people seek to exercise their "political rights" to defend their interests and expose corporate government/police/agency corruption.

Matthew, like other corporate media/political/judicial voices see themselves as the 'guardians' defined by Plato in Plato's Republic protecting society from those who they think pose a threat to the status quo, or, the continued existence of a cattle or goyim class to serve their needs & desires.

The court absurdly declared-Presumptive opinion #19- that a welfare recipient had a "property" interest in welfare and that this interest deserved due process protections when the government wanted to take that so-called property away. With the ruling, welfare effectively ceased to be a gratuity that could be granted and withdrawn at the discretion of the government.

GRATUITY:

The liberal Justice William Brennan considered Goldberg to be the most momentous decision of his career on the high court bench, according to David Frum in How We Got Here: the 70's, the Decade that Brought You Modern Life -- For Better or Worse. Brennan was "quite right," Frum observed.

In the end Cloward and Piven didn't get exactly what they wanted, but they knew they were onto something-Presumptive opinion #20-.

Their next step was outlined in a 1983 article titled "Toward a Class-Based Realignment of American Politics: A Movement Strategy," which ran in ACORN's magazine, Social Policy. The two professors might as well have named it "The Weight of the Poor -- Part Two."

This new iteration of their strategy called for the continued use of the poor as a cudgel against the American system. The unregistered poor were "rocks lyin' around," said Jesse Jackson during his ACORN-endorsed presidential run in 1984.

The Marxist duo said "massive numbers of new voters" had to be registered.

[E]nlisting millions of new and politicized voters is the way to create an electoral environment hospitable to fundamental change in American society. An enlarged and politicized electorate will sustain and encourage the movements in American society that are already working for the rights of women and minorities, for the protection of the social programs, and for transformation of foreign policy. Equally important, an enlarged and politicized electorate will foster and protect future mass movements from the bottom that the ongoing economic crisis is likely to generate, thus opening American politics to solutions to the economic crisis that express the interests of the lower strata of the population ... The objective is to accelerate the dealigning forces already at work in American politics, and to promote party realignment along class lines.

Cloward and Piven's long campaign to bring vast numbers of unproductive people-Presumptive opinion #21- into the political process culminated in the 1993 enactment of the Motor-Voter law. That law turned welfare offices into voter registration centers and encouraged nonprofit groups to conduct registration drives. It also opened the door to massive voter fraud -Presumptive opinion #22-.

The Founders anticipated redistributionist attacks on the Constitution -Presumptive opinion #23-. As Benjamin Franklin supposedly said, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." I have difficulty believing that this was a true quote of Ben's, unless he was advocating British, or elitist control of the issuance of a nations currency. This seems remarkably out of step with the quotes I have read about other 'founding fathers' opinion on the aforementioned quote. In fact as far as I am aware, the American Republic was founded on the very principle that their ability to manifest their own tools to live their lives freely was a self-evident truth.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." – Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

As you can see, Thomas Jefferson has effectively refuted Matthew's claims better than I ever could.

With the help of Cloward, Piven, Alinsky, and Obama, we're well on our way-Presumptive opinion #24-Might as well finish as he started... with a presumptive statement .

Matthew Vadum is an investigative journalist in Washington, D.C. His new book, Subversion Inc., was published in May.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html at September 02, 2011 - 07:22:31 PM CDT