$2 million legal defense fund for sb

Gov. Jan Brewer's office says Arizona has received more than $2 million in donations to help pay for the legal defense of the state's controversial law targeting illegal immigration.

Seven lawsuits were filed to challenge the law. Two have been dismissed but a judge ruled on filed by the U.S. Justice Department by blocking key provisions of the law from taking effect July 29.

If you would like to contribute to Arizona in defending border security and immigration matters, please click the appropriate donation button on this page.

keepazsafe.com


Brewer is appealing that ruling.
see the website keepazsafe.com to make a donation


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/31/20100831arizona-immigration-donations-rise.html#ixzz0yFY8XhYq

Glenn Beck launches new web site : The Blaze

Glenn Beck is a new web site The Blaze


Launched Monday a news and opinion website called The Blaze that he says will be "a place where you can find breaking news, original reporting, insightful opinions and engaging videos about the stories that matter most."



"Too many times we see mainstream media outlets distorting facts to fit rigid agendas," he wrote on The Blaze. "Not that you've ever heard me complain about the media before. Okay, maybe once or twice. But there comes a time when you have to stop complaining and do something. And so we decided to hire some actual journalists to launch a new website."

Beck added that the website "will be about current news -- and more. It's not just politics and policy. It's looking for insight wherever we find it. We'll examine our culture, deal with matters of faith and family, and we won't be afraid of a history lesson."

How'd they come up with the name The Blaze?

"The image of flame is a powerful," he said. "It has long stood for a burning truth. A truth that is not consumed. The Blazewill pursue truth. Of course we will make mistakes. Honest mistakes. And we'll be quick with corrections. We intend to earn your trust and keep it day in and day out with hard work and a lot of transparency."



see thee new website The Blaze

The Screw Tape Letters as memtioned on Glenn Beck show

Who among us has never wondered if there might not really be a tempter sitting on our shoulders or dogging our steps? C.S. Lewis dispels all doubts. In The Screwtape Letters, one of his bestselling works, we are made privy to the instructional correspondence between a senior demon, Screwtape, and his wannabe diabolical nephew Wormwood. As mentor, Screwtape coaches Wormwood in the finer points, tempting his "patient" away from God.
Each letter is a masterpiece of reverse theology, giving the reader an inside look at the thinking and means of temptation. Tempters, according to Lewis, have two motives: the first is fear of punishment, the second a hunger to consume or dominate other beings. On the other hand, the goal of the Creator is to woo us unto himself or to transform us through his love from "tools into servants and servants into sons." It is the dichotomy between being consumed and subsumed completely into another's identity or being liberated to be utterly ourselves that Lewis explores with his razor-sharp insight and wit.

The most brilliant feature of The Screwtape Letters may be likening hell to a bureaucracy in which "everyone is perpetually concerned about his own dignity and advancement, where everyone has a grievance, and where everyone lives the deadly serious passions of envy, self-importance, and resentment." We all understand bureaucracies, be it the Department of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, or one of our own making. So we each understand the temptations that slowly lure us into hell. If you've never read Lewis, The Screwtape Letters is a great place to start. And if you know Lewis, but haven't read this, you've missed one of his core writings. --Patricia Klein --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.




The Screw Tape Letters (Bantam Classics)

will be interesting how media covers the Glenn Beck rally in DC

will be interesting how media covers the Glenn Beck rally in DC


I will be watching to see how the media reports on the massive DC turnout rally in DC for the 8/28 rally. I am sure the left wing media will critize this rally for something.

Glenn Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

Glenn Beck: Help us restore traditional American values


By PHILIP ELLIOTT and NAFEESA SYEED, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott And Nafeesa Syeed, Associated Press Writer – 1 min ago
WASHINGTON – Conservative commentator Glenn Beck and tea party champion Sarah Palin appealed Saturday to a vast, predominantly white crowd on the National Mall to help restore traditional American values and honor Martin Luther King's message. Civil rights leaders who accused the group of hijacking King's legacy held their own rally and march.

While Beck billed his event as nonpolitical, activists from around the nation said their show of strength was a clear sign that they can make a difference in the country's future and that they want a government that will listen and unite.

Palin told the tens of thousands who stretched from the marble steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the grass of the Washington Monument that calls to transform the country weren't enough. "We must restore America and restore her honor," said the former Alaska governor, echoing the name of the rally, "Restoring Honor."

Palin, the GOP vice presidential nominee in 2008 and a potential White House contender in 2012, and Beck repeatedly cited King and made references to the Founding Fathers. Beck put a heavy religious cast on nearly all his remarks, sounding at times like an evangelical preacher.

"Something beyond imagination is happening," he said. "America today begins to turn back to God."

Beck exhorted the crowd to "recognize your place to the creator. Realize that he is our king. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us." He asked his audience to pray more. "I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see," he said.

Many in the crowd watched the proceedings on large television screens. On the edges of the Mall, vendors sold "Don't Tread on Me" flags, popular with tea party activists.

by PHILIP ELLIOTT and NAFEESA SYEED AP news


see more on Glenn Beck

billboards of Mohammed picture across Mosque site in New York City

billboards of Mohammed picture across proposed Mosque site in New York City ?


I heard some people are considering putting up pictures / billboards / cartoons of Mohammed near the proposed site in New York City.

Will this be considered as an insult to Muslims ?

Does Obama beleive in liberation theology ?

Glenn Beck talks to a capacity crowd in the showroom at the Atlantic City Hilton. Mr. Beck has said that the president does not conform to “true” Christian values.


what's all this collective salvation talk ?


The great national mystery over President Obama’s religion – Islamic? Follower of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Adherent of the Sunday morning church of golf? – has a new twist. How about Latin American liberation theology?


see the complete article at













http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0825/Glenn-Beck-sticks-liberation-theology-label-on-Obama-s-Christianity

The Wrestling Party is a raucous

When does desire turn into exploitation?" Bett Williams asks, reflecting on a relationship she had with a seventeen-year-old girl when she was thirty. This is the question that hums beneath The Wrestling Party, whether Bett is exploring the youth-worshiping tendencies of a riot grrrl music -festival or telling the tale of a disabled boy’s passion for Tara Lapinsky or giving advice to "stalker chicks." Bett’s life becomes unhinged in an attempt to finally get it right when she has a crush on Anikka, a nightclub regular with a Swiss/German accent who is sexually submissive (as in TheVillage Voice personals-submissive). Bett’s crush lands her half naked and covered in oil while wrestling a dozen women in her garage. Still unable to win over Anikka, she enlists the help of David, an obnoxious Scottish writer who assists in bringing the relationship with Anikka to its hilarious and startling finale.

The Wrestling Party is a raucous mixture of cultural criticism, erotic tell-all, and in-the-field journalism that reads like a novel you can’t put down. In an era marked by social isolation and paint-by-numbers politics, Bett’s stories offer us a glimpse of who we are beyond the constraints of cool correctness. Like wrestling, conflict in Bett’s -nimble hands is transformed into beauty and violence, into something altogether more complicated and tender.







The Wrestling Party

is Obama spending millions against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio ?

is Obama spending millions against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio ?


smells like some political bullshit from team Obama.

looks like he trying to save generate more federal jobs at the DOJ

Obama economic team should resign

John Boehner: Obama economic team should resign


John Boehner on Tuesday called for the resignation of President Barack Obama's embattled economic team, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House economic adviser Larry Summers.


from the Christian Science Monitor
click to read more

Obama's spiritual advisor Jim Wallis caught in his bullshit...

Jim Wallis: Ooops, I guess I did take Soros money

After calling Glenn Beck a liar, Obama's spiritual advisor Jim Wallis had to apologize after the facts blatantly proved that Jim Wallis was the one lying. A reporter demanded Wallis admit he took Soros money - after initially calling him a liar, Wallis had to eat dirt.



Jim Wallis/ Check out the full story HERE

Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama

Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama


David Limbaugh is the first guy on the right to really dig down into Obama’s politics and personality at the depth where we see not just what we already know, but what we’ve suspected — the Obama Presidency, if not put in check, will threaten our liberties all in the name of Obama’s ivory tower utopian world view.




“Based on his behavior as president, it is clear he truly believes his own hype, for we have discovered that instead of messianic, Obama is acutely, perhaps clinically, narcissistic…. Unless stopped, and reversed, the casualties of Obama’s systematic assault on this nation will be our prosperity, our security, and ultimately, our liberty.”



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama

police seize multi AK-47s ammo clips marijuana

click to see this video : police seize multi AK-47s ammo clips marijuana



by Jennifer Thomas

Ali Velsi of CNN, is a Canadian Shia Muslim of the minority Ismaili sect

CNN's Ali Velshi engaged in moral relativism on Wednesday's Newsroom as he editorialized on the controversial planned mosque near Ground Zero. Velshi worried about the precedent that might be set if a government "assisted" in moving its site: "Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site?"





The anchor, a Canadian Shia Muslim of the minority Ismaili sect, closed out the 2 pm Eastern hour of Newsroom with his regular "XYZ" commentary, which he devoted to the controversy. Velshi began by stating that it was "an emotional topic, and one I wasn't sure I should bring up in these last few minutes." He then launched into a short explanation of the 1st Amendment's protection of religious liberty, echoing, in a way, his colleague Roland Martin's constitutional defense of the mosque on Tuesday night.




http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/08/18/cnns-velshi-ban-catholic-churches-oklahoma-city-because-mcveigh#ixzz0x6tGFFfL

CNN's Ali Velshi wants to move Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site

CNN's Ali Velshi engaged in moral relativism on Wednesday's Newsroom as he editorialized on the controversial planned mosque near Ground Zero. Velshi worried about the precedent that might be set if a government "assisted" in moving its site: "Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic. Do we then entertain petitions of moving Catholic churches away from the Oklahoma bombing site?"




The anchor, a Canadian Shia Muslim of the minority Ismaili sect, closed out the 2 pm Eastern hour of Newsroom with his regular "XYZ" commentary, which he devoted to the controversy. Velshi began by stating that it was "an emotional topic, and one I wasn't sure I should bring up in these last few minutes." He then launched into a short explanation of the 1st Amendment's protection of religious liberty, echoing, in a way, his colleague Roland Martin's constitutional defense of the mosque on Tuesday night:




 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/08/18/cnns-velshi-ban-catholic-churches-oklahoma-city-because-mcveigh#ixzz0x6tGFFfL

 
 
 
 

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE: THE REAL ISSUE




The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be -- as many mosques throughout the nation are -- a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.



There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.



Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.



But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant -- terrorism.



Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.



President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.



Politically, President Obama's defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans -- the mosque and opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?



To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.



Do You Want the Bush Tax Cuts Renewed? Vote Here Now.



http://polls.newsmax.com/taxcuts/?PROMO_CODE=A887-1



Dick Morris Says Prepare! - Senator Predicts Financial Meltdown
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

who left the dogs out ? quick video no obama

Al Gore is pissed.......

Al Gore: Hit the streets!



GLENN: Now let's go to Al Gore, who would like you to take to the streets because our government has failed us entirely.

PAT: Yeah. Well, we heard that last week from him that the government has failed us entirely? You remember that?


http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44405/

GORE: I want to call you to action, but I have to begin by telling you what you know. In all candor the United States government in its entirety, largely because of the opposition in the United States Senate to taking action on clean energy and a solution to the climate crisis, has failed us. America is capable of great things. We always have been and we still are. We have a history of great leadership from our earliest days. The United States Senate has failed to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.



PAT: And, of course, the government has failed in its entirety. So on his blog post he linked the Australian wire service report that tens of thousands of protestors have taken to the streets across Australia to protest on climate change and then he said, across the world, when politicians fail to take action to solve the climate crisis, people are taking action. He added, after excerpting the news reports, it is my hope we see activism like this here in the United States.



GLENN: I wish I could do that.



PAT: So he's calling for people to, tens of thousands of people, I guess, to take to the streets of the United States and start protesting because their government has failed in its entirety.



GLENN: This goes back to Van Jones and ACORN and the unions and everybody else. They are encouraging people to get out into the streets and hold up their signs and be really angry and march and sit down and don't move and all of these things. They are encouraging them, while at the same time tea parties are gathering. And they're demonizing that, except the left has a tendency of getting violent and we've already seen it. That's why it is important that you, as an American citizen, are different. You must stand out. You must be different. This is why I say do not bring any signs to 8/28. Don't bring them. And if you see people with signs, ask them to put them down. And if they won't, I believe they're infiltrators. I'm not expecting infiltrators, quite honestly. I mean, there's enough, believe me. Believe me. There's enough that will



GLENN: Now, with Al Gore, he wants to save the planet and the government has fundamentally failed you. But that's good stuff.



PAT: Yeah, because of the climate crisis, the government has failed you.



GLENN: Hang on just a second. Climate crisis?



PAT: Yeah, there's a climate crisis.



GLENN: Okay.



PAT: On the other hand we just heard, what, 45 minutes ago from Barack Obama that there's no Social Security crisis.



GLENN: I think they have a hard time defining crisis.



PAT: I think they do. Crisis means a little something to them.



GLENN: No financial, no Social Security crisis.



PAT: Right. But there is a climate crisis.



GLENN: Okay, hang on just a second. Because the climate in 100 years will be out of control?



PAT: Or 1,000, whatever.



GLENN: Between 100 and 1,000 years, the climate will be out of control. But within five to ten, Social Security will be out of control.



PAT: But that's not a crisis.



GLENN: That's not a crisis?



PAT: No.



GLENN: I don't understand the word the way they are using it. -- I don't think they know what it means. May I just give you this? Do you know what the fiscal year 2009 agency financial report is called for the Department of Energy? Do you know what they called the report in 2009?



PAT: No.



GLENN: Department of Energy. This is actually from a book that we're releasing here soon. I'm just doing the final edits on it today. The Department of Energy, their annual report called working to save the planet.



PAT: Wow.



GLENN: That's the Department of Energy. Is that a little strange? That's their new goal?



PAT: Because the climate is in crisis, Glenn. The planet, because of our SUVs, the planet is in crisis.



GLENN: Do you drive an SUV?



PAT: Of course, but that's because I have to get from Point A to Point B to save the planet.



GLENN: Yeah, but if I can't get to Point A to point B in order to



PAT: You can walk because you're not you're not fighting to save the planet. You simply are focused on destroying the planet.



GLENN: Okay. But you just take the SUV then and you don't burn up like a bunch of jet fuel to go places, do you?



PAT: Well, I plant trees in Indonesia.



GLENN: You what?



PAT: I plant trees in Indonesia.



GLENN: You plant trees?



PAT: Trees.



GLENN: Okay, that's good.



PAT: That offsets the planet killing carbon dioxide that's coming out of my SUVs.



GLENN: That offsets?



PAT: That offsets the SUVs.



GLENN: Why don't you just stop using the plane?



PAT: Because I must, as I said if you'd listen to me, I must get from Point A to Point B to save the planet.



GLENN: How about using just technology? For instance, I mean, there's like video conferencing.



PAT: Do you know how much CO2 computers use?



GLENN: There's holographic images now that you can put in. It's like you're in the room.



PAT: Again you're expending energy.



GLENN: I understand that, but you're expending much less energy than you would on the Gulfstream.



PAT: That's why I plant the trees in Indonesia.



GLENN: Instead of planting the trees, because I think you have to use computers to be able to transfer funds to Indonesia.



PAT: Well, that's what I'm saying. I must, I must save the planet. And see, in all of my efforts to save the planet, I have to expend some energy. That's why I can't, I can't abide these hypocrites like yourself who drives around in his SUV just to get his fat but from Point A to Point B.



GLENN: But see, that doesn't make me a hypocrite because I don't believe in global warming.



PAT: But you are telling me I shouldn't be using my SUV.



GLENN: Well, because you are telling me I shouldn't use my SUV.



PAT: That's because you're not saving the planet. The Earth has a fever, Glenn.



GLENN: Does it seem like this might be a circular argument?



PAT: It does.



GLENN: Just a little bit?



[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

Appleseed Project

about The Appleseed Project




The Appleseed Project non-profit organization dedicated to teaching every American, regardless of race, religion, gender, sexuality, national origin, or ideology our shared heritage and history as well as traditional rifle marksmanship skills. Our volunteer instructors travel across the country teaching those who attend about the difficult choices, the heroic actions, and the sacrifices that the Founders made on behalf of modern Americans, all of whom are their “progeny.”




Our heritage program vividly portrays the Battles of Lexington and Concord with the kind of care and immediacy that is absent from most formal schooling. Modern listeners are confronted with the danger, the fear, and the heartbreaking separations that arose out of the choices made on April 19th, 1775. They are also reminded of the marksmanship skills and masterful organization that ultimately helped set the colonists on the path to success. Those who attend gain a better understanding of the fundamental choices faced by our ancestors as they began to set the stage for the nation we now enjoy.

Marksmanship Clinic

click to enter offical website for the appleseed Project









http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

NBC news wants to build the mosque at Ground Zero...

NBC news wants to build the mosque at Ground Zero

Looks like NBC is the only news media that's seems to be promoting the ideal of building
the mosque at ground zero.

this smells like the George Soros propaganda machine at work with their left leaning comrades at NBC and MSnbc.

what a bunch of shitheads

 Bill O'Reily talked about this issue on Fox news.

My name is Terry Myers and I am running for Congress.

My name is Terry Myers and I am running for Congress.


About A brief word from Terry Myers




My name is Terry Myers and I am running for Congress. I am running for Congress in District 7 because I am not satisfied with Congressman Grijalva. In the eight years he has represented us; he has voted to strip the elderly of their health care and voted to raise taxes in the midst of the greatest recession since the great Depression eighty years ago. Now he is urging a boycott of Arizona businesses because we want to seal the border against drug dealers and dangerous criminals.



click to visit Terry Myers offical web site

THE TEA PARTY RESCUES AMERICA by Dick Morris

THE TEA PARTY RESCUES AMERICA







For a decade, the left owned the streets. Subsidized by George Soros and energized by the Clinton impeachment in the 90s and the Iraq War since, it dominated the Internet and grass roots campaigning. Michael Moore's movies - however misguided - enthused their ranks and catalyzed their efforts. ACORN worked to commit massive voter fraud in the guise of stimulating voter turnout and the New Black Panthers worked to intimidate those with whom they disagreed. President Barack Obama was the result.



Now, finally, conservatives are answering with their own grass roots efforts in the Tea Party movement. Tea Party activists are bringing the battle to stop big government spending and taxes to the streets and parks of America.



And its working! The Tea Party movement, working closely with Americans for Prosperity (AFP), mobilized people against the Obamacare proposal and, in the end, will cost the Democrats their Congressional majorities - a fitting price for defying the will of the people.



Democrats are so threatened that they are demonizing the Tea Party as eccentric, extreme and racist. Speaker Pelosi compared them to the Nazis. These are the cries of those about to lose an election - big time!



Now a new film, The Tea Party Movie, shows the anatomy of the group and explains its motivations. With almost no funding or paid staff and all decisions made at the local level, the Tea Party people are reshaping American politics. A bottom-up movement, they are restoring values to our politics.



The film, sometimes moving, sometimes funny, and always interesting is available online at http://www.teapartymovie.com. Do yourself a favor and watch it!



And, on September 12th, pack your bags and migrate to Sacramento, St. Louis, or Washington DC for the three mega-rallies sponsored by the Tea Party folks. Its time to get out of the grandstands and onto the playing field. We need a massive show of participation and enthusiasm to kick-off, animate, and catalyze the effort to throw the big spending socialists out of Congress in November! Go to http://teapartypatriots.org/Recycle/Recycle.aspx to learn more about the rallies. Organize your friends and neighbors to go and attend!



The Tea Party is not only electing Republicans, it is cleansing them. Their victories in intra-party contests in Utah, Colorado, Nevada, and South Carolina shows that they are no happier with big spending Republicans than with Democrats of a similar persuasion. Many worried that the Tea Party would be a third party movement, splitting the vote and electing the Democrats. No way. Instead, they are winning their primaries and purifying the Party.


What a great time to be alive and what a wonderful group to support!


By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN


Published on DickMorris.com on August 16, 2010
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Glenn Beck: 8 cents

Glenn Beck: 8 cents





http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44300/







GLENN: I want to tell you, and a little later I'm going to get into the full details about the Hindenburg Omen.

The Hindenburg Omen, that doesn't sound good. It happened on Friday and it's, it's an economic thing, says that there's a 77% chance of a crash coming our way in the next 40 days. There's trouble in the Middle East. Unemployment now is at the highest I think it's ever been for those who are 16 to 24 years old. We're talking now a lost generation. There's the beginnings of civil unrest. The debt is unsustainable. The debt is so large now that next year we could have people say, I'm not going to buy your debt anymore, I don't believe America is serious. We have problems on our border that now include Hezbollah. We have a sheriff down on our border who says we've got to abandon this town. We have to abandon an American town! And yet, the president does nothing. We have enemies within the gates. We have an attack on capitalism. There's a billboard in Phoenix, Arizona, that says we don't have a legal problem; we have a capitalism problem: We have attack on freedom. We have attack on our own energy sources. You talk to anybody in the oil industry, in Houston, in the climate summit gulf, anybody, and they will tell you there's no new drilling permits even being issued. Our military is stretched too thin and our religion is under attack. Now, you tell me is an election going to solve these problems? Do you really think getting the Republicans to take over the House is the answer to solve these problems? Maybe it delays some of it and it's important, but is that the answer? I don't know how anyone can say yes. I don't know how anybody can say, well, by not enforcing the laws, by making sure that we bail out all of the states, that we give our union buddies all of these extra favors, by going into more socialism, by going into more debt that that is the solution. There's only one solution, only one. One. And if we don't turn to him pretty soon, we're in trouble. They have told people on the steps of the Supreme Court that they cannot pray there. They have told students on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial they can't sing the National Anthem there. And last week I was told by the Kennedy Center that we could not pray there. We were told by the Kennedy Center in no uncertain terms that we could hold our event there, sure we had a contract. But they weren't told that we were going to have an opening prayer. The program is has the word divine in it, our divine destiny. We couldn't pray at the Kennedy Center. So my attorneys came to me and said, Glenn, are you willing to compromise on it? And I said, I sure am. You tell them that not only will I do an opening prayer, I'll do a closing prayer, and the entire program may be a prayer. In fact, take this down. It is a night of prayer. You'll see if you are lucky enough to get a ticket to the Kennedy Center, and they are not for sale. You will see in the program how I described it. I described it that way. So they could print that in their program at the Kennedy Center which they insisted on having after they told us we couldn't pray. I said, let me dictate this one. Friday night I was supposed to have a meeting today at 1:00 with their attorneys and I had already talked to my attorneys. Zero compromise. We asked them, where is that in your I didn't see that in your rules and regulations. "It's not written down." No prayer at a federally funded building.







Friday night I think they got a hold of Common Sense. They alerted me Friday night that they will allow prayer to happen on the stage of the Kennedy Center. I told them, thank you so much for your graciousness. I appreciate the scrap from the table. America, our religion and our faith is under attack and whether people care to realize it or not, it is. I went down to West Palm on Friday and I had some meetings with these very wealthy individuals and I asked them for their support of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. Now, I don't need any more I don't need any more money to be able to cover the cost for this event. It's been paid for. I think it's been paid for in double, at least where it stands right now. This is for the this is for the guys who are fighting and dying for us. The Special Operations Warrior Foundation, this started on the trip over to Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. And the guys on the helicopter all looked at each other, all special forces, they looked at each other and said, if you die, I'll take care of your family; if I die, will you take care of mine. And they promised each other that, yes, they would. Well, the helicopters blew up in the desert and we lost good men trying to save American citizens from a theocracy, one that is still in existence and stoning people because they're homosexual.



We have now 500 families to take care of, and the number is growing every day, 500 families. This particular organization, they take care of their schooling. They call them on their birthdays. If there's a problem with one of them in school, they could be in the fourth grade and they lost their dad. One of their brothers that was part of the force where Dad was lost gets onto a plane and flies into town and finds out from the son what's going on, what's happening to your grades. These guys honor their commitment.





So I was sitting having dinner with a group of wealthy individuals and I asked them, can you write a check? And many of them did. When I got onto the plane, I asked also what had come in during the week and Joe was there on the plane with me and he said, well, Glenn, a TV viewer just out of the blue just wrote us a check, and I want to show it to you. Here's a check for $25,000, just from a, just a viewer that just said, I want to write a check. $25,000, from their personal account. And he was going on and on about all these people who are starting to step to the plate. I said, what else did we get? And he said, well, we also got a letter in and the person said, I can't make it because I can't afford to come, but I believe in our special forces and I believe in what you're doing. And honor is the key. I wish I could come, but I can't but I wanted to show my support and this is all I could afford. In the envelope was a baggy, and this is not from a child. 8 cents, 8 pennies. I've tried to get my arms around someone as they went into their change drawer and all they had were eight pennies. I tried to get my arms around somebody who then went to the kitchen and put it in a Ziploc baggy, a used one, and then put it in an envelope. I'm replacing those eight pennies myself and I'm keeping these eight cents and putting them in my pocket as a reminder. I don't know. I remember filling up my gas tank and having to count it out in change. I remember the days that, you know, my kids didn't think that my gas tank held more than $5.27. This to me is the epitome of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. Have you is there anything in your life that you would give it all? Is there anything to you that is so important to you that you would go into your change drawer and count out your last eight pennies and mail them? I ask you this isn't for 8/28 because like I said, it's all paid for. This is for the guys who gave their last full measure of life for the freedom that we have taken for granted, gave their last full measure of life for the things that we didn't realize how fragile they were. Would you do me the honor of presenting the Special Operations Warrior Foundation on 8/28 with a very large check, even if it comes in 8 cents at a time. Would you go to GlennBeck.com/828. If you haven't made a donation, these are the last two weeks. Even if it's $1, $10, $25,000 or your last 8 cents. GlennBeck.com/828 for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation.



see to see more 8 cents transcript by Glenn Beck
GlennBeck.com/828 for the Special Operations Warrior Foundation

Competition Breeds Success II , in Harlem school district

Competition Breeds Success II
This morning, I got an e-mail that provides another example of how private schools tend to beat the government-union monopoly.

Dear John:

The annual state test results were just announced, and we have exciting news to share!

In eighth grade math, Harlem Village Academywas the highest performing school in the state of New York. With 100% proficiency for the third straight year, we outperformed the city (46%), state (55%), Harlem (36%), Scarsdale (80%) and Chappaqua (91%).

In eighth grade English, we were the highest performing of all schools in Harlem.

That came to me from Deborah Kenny, another entrepreneur who runs an outstanding school in Harlem.

see more at...
click to see more

Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/08/09/competition-breeds-success-ii-2/#ixzz0wc3kinmD

Cavuto: Why Pay More For a Lousy Government?

Cavuto: Why Pay More For a Lousy Government?




Would you frequent an establishment that routinely over-charged for its product?

see more at fox news Neil Cavuto

Glenn Beck: Constitution a niche?

Glenn Beck: Constitution a 'niche'?
August 12, 2010


GLENN: This is from the Center For American Progress. The Center For American Progress has education cuts. We started the hour telling you about how the press is ‑‑ the press is just being, it's being gutted. I told you about the Internet today and free press and what's happening with free press and the Internet and how that is all about to change. We told you about the economic strife that is headed our way. I mean, look out, gang. You know, we showed you the mass graves here. There's something bad happening in the Middle East. There's just a lot of things that are going on, civil unrest that is beginning. Tonight on television I'm going to do two things. I want to show you the history of the Weimar Republic and specifically, specifically how it ties into what happened in Atlanta yesterday and with the Fed and what is to come. Learn from history, and you will see what is about to come our way.

The second half of the show is going after the Center of American progress and their new report on education. Now, we all know that education cuts have to be made but they don't need to be done at the federal level. They need to be done at the state level. Education needs to be controlled by the states, not the federal government. Abolish the Department of Education and let the states do it. And let the states negotiate their way out with these unions. Period. The Center For American Progress has another idea. They would like to start their cuts. They're not as broad as mine, of course. They would like to develop and cut the narrow low‑impact programs from the Department of Education. One of these low impact and narrow almost niche programs include academies for American history and civics. This is a program which provide workshops for teachers on American history. We should probably cut that. Then we the people needs to be cut. This is a program for the center for civic education to instruct students in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

PAT: Yeah, what do they need to know that for? That's old. That's an old document.

GLENN: And then there's this one. Excellence in economic education. This is a grant designed to promote economic and financial literacy among K to 12 students. So let's see if we have this right. They want to cut programs in American education, in Constitution, and financial literacy. That sounds good. That sounds like a good, good plan.

PAT: That's almost as good as the plans in Arizona. They had that ‑‑ there was a big uproar. Not only did they do the immigration law but at the same time almost the legislature, they passed a law that banned education classes in Arizona to promote the overthrow of the United States government, right? Remember that? Or, or promote resentment toward a race or class of people because they had these ethnic studies in Arizona that were really focused on race‑baiting, on America's the enemy, all of those kinds of things and people went crazy: How can you cut out their ethics studies? What kind of racism is that? Well, the law apparently doesn't prohibit these classes as long as they are open to all students and don't promote ethnic resentment or solidarity. But Arizona's superintendent of public instruction, Tom Horne says the basic theme of the Mexican‑American studies program in Arizona is that Latino students were and continue to be victims of a racist American society driven by the interests of the middle and upper class whites. Among the goals listed for the Mexican‑American studies are... social justice, Latino critical race pedagogy, and they have pictures in the classroom showing the walls decorated with heroes like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Not a problem. Not a problem. So eliminating American history ‑‑

GLENN: I don't think there's a problem there.

PAT: ‑‑ eliminate Constitution and ‑‑

GLENN: Financial.

PAT: Financial, literacy.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: And then bring in Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and tell everybody that the whites are the problem and they are racist.

GLENN: Okay. So America, ask yourself these ‑‑ ask yourself this question. With as corrupt as our government is right now, and it is wildly corrupt ‑‑ and this isn't a Republican thing ‑‑ or, I mean, a Democrat thing. Trent Lott. Last thing we need is a bunch of Jim DeMints around there. We need to coopt them. I mean, they are about power. That's all they are about, power. And the power in Washington must be reduced, must. Not reduced. The power in Washington must be restored to its original power. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that? How are you going to solve the financial crisis when you have Cass Sunstein and a bill that once Obama ‑‑ let's just say Obama comes in and he abolishes ‑‑ or I mean, a Republican Democrat ‑‑ I mean, a Republican congressman and it's all Republican utopia. Do you really think they are going to reverse the financial reform package? No. They will use it to their advantage. And it will continue to grow. So how are you going to, how are you going to change that? How are you going to change ethics in Washington? How are you going to change the banking problem and the ethics in banking and the ethics in business? How are you going to repair with cries of racism? And it happened with George Bush and it's happening with Barack Obama. How are you going to repair the illegal immigration problem? How are you going to repair the healthcare problem that we have? We all admit that our healthcare system is broken. It's broken. Now, how are you going to repair that? With the situation that we have with politics? How are you going to fight and keep your children when you are so busy fighting on all other fronts, when you have this nonsense being taught in schools? How are you going to fight the battle that is in your church now with social justice and collective salvation? Most people in churches aren't even aware of it now. They are not even aware of it. There are some preachers that don't even know.

I talk to some people that watch these trends. They said last election people that should know had no idea what was happening in their churches. How are you going to do that? It's the same question that people asked in the 1760s. How would you possibly separate from Britain? You can't. You can't. You can't defeat them. You can't win against them. They hold all the cards. You can't do it. The awakening that led people to understand that they have direct access to inspiration and the power of God, direct access. Not through anybody, not through any church. Direct access. And if the people restore themselves, this is 1760, 1740s they are saying this. If the American people would restore themselves to God, it will all work out. On 8/27, make sure you find out all the information at GlennBeck.com. 8/27, divine destiny at the Kennedy Center for the performing arts. It is a night of God. It is a night of how religion plays a role in the governance of this country. It's a separation of church and state. Religion and God plays a role in the individual life and then you don't need very much government because we self‑govern. We will take the words of the preachers of the 1740s to 1770 and show you what lines from sermons were taken out and used as foundation of this country and then we have members from, there's a rabbi that's going to be speaking, there is an evangelical that's going to be speaking, there's members of many faiths that are going to take those words from those sermons and translate them into today's world. There will be things that have never happened before at the Kennedy Center, I understand. We're going to talk about, turn your life over to God. That's it. Let Him work it out. Let Him work it out. And there's a difference. I want to make sure you understand this. It doesn't mean you do nothing. God helps those who help themselves, but you have to ‑‑ how did you put that just a little while ago, Pat?

PAT: Pray as if everything depends on God.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Act as if everything depends on you.

GLENN: Act as if everything depends on you. That's the way it is. Tickets are going to be extraordinarily limited. Right now if you go to the Kennedy Center, it will be first come first serve. There are 2500 seats but a lot of those are going to be taken up by people that I don't want to announce because it will just drive people crazy and there's no reason to do that. You’ll find out who they are and I'll tell you on 8/27. This is kind of an appetizer for 8/28. And then buckle up, gang, because at the feet of the Lincoln Memorial at 10:00 two weeks from Saturday, miracles happen. Miracles happen. And not on the stage but with the number of people, whether it's 200,000 or 20,000. Miracles will happen in the crowd around the reflecting pool at the Lincoln Memorial. Join me there. 8/28.



see the complete article by Glenn Beck

SE Cupp ....... Losing Our Religion

SE Cupp .......




About the Author
S.E. CUPP is a regular guest commentator on MSNBC, CNN, C-SPAN, and Fox News Channel programs including Hannity, Larry King Live, The Joy Behar Show, Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld, Geraldo and Reliable Sources. A nationally published political columnist and culture critic, she is currently an online columnist for the New York Daily News and senior writer at The Daily Caller. She coauthored Why You're Wrong About the Right with Brett Joshpe.







Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity

Amity Shlaes and her book: The Forgotten Man

Its duration and depth made the Depression "Great," and Shlaes, a prominent conservative economics journalist, considers why a decade of government intervention ameliorated but never tamed it. With vitality uncommon for an economics history, Shlaes chronicles the projects of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as well as these projects' effect on those who paid for them. Reminding readers that the reputedly do-nothing Hoover pulled hard on the fiscal levers (raising tariffs, increasing government spending), Shlaes nevertheless emphasizes that his enthusiasm for intervention paled against the ebullient FDR's glee in experimentation. She focuses closely on the influence of his fabled Brain Trust, her narrative shifting among Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and other prominent New Dealers. Businesses that litigated their resistance to New Deal regulations attract Shlaes' attention, as do individuals who coped with the despair of the 1930s through self-help, such as Alcoholics Anonymous cofounder Bill Wilson. The book culminates in the rise of Wendell Willkie, and Shlaes' accent on personalities is an appealing avenue into her skeptical critique of the New Deal. Gilbert Taylor



as seen on the Glenn beck show


The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression

Catholics come home

Catholics come home


Welcome to Catholics Come Home. We’re here to help you begin or continue your faith journey, so you can find true peace, happiness and purpose in life.

At Catholics Come Home, we are dedicated to presenting the honest truth about even very difficult subjects. We want to share with you the beautiful, historical and miraculous aspects of the Catholic Church. People who have taken the time to explore our site are surprised to find out that there is much more to Catholicism than they ever realized.


vist the Catholics Come Home web site

new tv advetising campaign to reach out to inactive / dormant Catholics?



www.catholicscomehome.org

I Can Stalk U web site and info

I Can Stalk U


Raising awareness about inadvertent information sharing


see http://icanstalku.com/

see more info on

Blog on narco activity in Mexico

Blog on narco activity in Mexico

blogdelnarco

when the usual news media fail to report, see this site for info

Weimar Republic as discussed on Glenn Beck show

Born out of national defeat in 1918, the Weimar Republic launched Germany on an experiment in modernity under the least propitious circumstances. In an outstanding scholarly study that is likely to spark controversy, late German historian Peukert ( Inside Nazi Germany ) claims that the distinctive national characteristics of German history and of Weimar do not all point in a direct line to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933. Weimar's fragile attempt at democracy, he contends, was destroyed by a steady retreat from political compromise and by a continuous shrinking of the material and economic base, which prevented the liberal government, with its welfare structure, from gaining real legitimacy in the eyes of the German people. Interpreting Weimar as a brief, headlong tour of the fateful choices made possible by the modern world, this rigorous history explores the paradox of a society that spawned avant-garde cultural breakthroughs amid bleak poverty and political breakdown.








The Weimar Republic

Obama is the worst president in history

Is President Obama the "worst president in history"? That's what the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle claims in a new TV ad aimed at boosting his congressional bid in Arizona.




Ben Quayle, running for the GOP nomination in the state's 3rd Congressional District, speaks directly to the camera in the spot, which began airing in the Phoenix area Wednesday. "Barack Obama is the worst president in history," Quayle says in the ad's opening seconds. Because of Obama, the 33-year-old says, "my generation will inherit a weakened country."



Citing "drug cartels in Mexico" and "in D.C.," Quayle asks, "What's happened to America?" He goes on to ask voters to send him to Congress. "I love Arizona. I was raised right," he says. "Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place." You can watch the ad after the jump.










click to read about Obama the worst president in history

is Fannie Mae stilling bleeding your tax dollars ?

Fannie Mae Asks for $1.5 Billion as Feds Review Mortgage Overhaul



see more on Fannie May



Read more: http://www.thirdage.com/news/fannie-mae-asks-15-billion-feds-review-mortgage-overhaul_8-9-2010#ixzz0wPXL5100

Voodoo in Obama’s White House

Kristen Atkinson, a blogger over at the Townhall website, has posted an article claiming Marian Robinson, the 72-year old first grandmother who lives at the White House, is practicing Santería, otherwise known as voodoo. A close friend of Michelle Obama says the president became furious at his mother-in-law.


Obama may be outraged by a voodoo priestess chanting in the White House, but paganism at the highest levels of government is nothing new.


According to Atkinson, Marian Robinson became increasingly frustrated as her husband, Fraser Robinson, was hobbled by multiple sclerosis in the late 1980s, and turned to “Santeria in a desperate hope” to cure him. “Michelle put her foot down when she heard that her mother took her dad to ceremonies where they did spells and trances, and sacrificed animals, chickens and goats I think. But Marian was desperate and kept going anyway, even when her husband was to sick to go with her. I don’t think the president knew anything about this earlier because it was before they met. Michelle and Craig (her brother) wanted to close the book on this and never talked about it again after their father died in 1991.”


voodoo in obamas white house click to read on Obama voodoo

I need a job, not more voodoo numbers from Obama

I need a job, not more voodoo numbers from Obama

A CONTRACT WITH AMERICA FOR 2010

A CONTRACT WITH AMERICA FOR 2010

By DICK MORRIS

My observations from the campaign trail are that this year's elections will be a total and complete disaster for the Democratic Party. In fact, it will amount to the obliteration of an entire generation of Democratic officeholders. It will become very rare to find a youngish baby boomer white Democrat in elective office in the United States. I believe that almost half of the white Democratic congressmen who are seeking reelection will lose!

A wipeout of this magnitude cannot be explained, alone, by Obama's ratings or his policies. He has fallen sharply since he took office, but even ratings in the 40s do not explain this type of result. It is increasingly obvious that Congress has earned much of this disaster by itself, quite unrelated to Obama. The vision of the deal-making that accompanied healthcare was too disgusting for the average American to stomach. And now the failure of the Congress to expel Reps. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) underscores its inability to police itself.

But Republicans need to remember that when they lost the House in 2006, about 5 percent of their incumbents were under indictment, convicted or in prison, or resigned. Washington has always been the crime capital of America, but the House of Representatives was its highest crime-rate neighborhood!

Republicans should embrace specific ethical reforms, which they should showcase in their campaign advertising in 2010. These positive ads will do as much as any good negative to underscore the difference between a Republican challenger and a Democratic incumbent.

The reforms should include:

• The establishment of an office of special prosecutor for Congress, with its head appointed by the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a fixed term. The office should have subpoena power, a well-funded staff and the right to convene grand juries and issue indictments. Self-policing by ethics committees obviously does not work.

• All earmarking should be banned. Congress cannot be trusted with this power.

• A ban on spouses of members of Congress serving on boards or accepting employment by any company or organization that receives federal funds. In cases like Mrs. Chris Dodd and Mrs. Evan Bayh, corporate board employment was a way for special interests to influence their husbands and pad the family checkbook.

• A ban on families of members of Congress serving as lobbyists.

• No free travel, whether sponsored by foundations or lobbyists. Only government trips on official business -- real business -- should be allowed.

• Full disclosure of the precise amounts of members' net worth, debts, investments and holdings, including home mortgages.

• Full publication, online, of all committee votes.

• No student loan repayments for congressional staffers.

• A five-year ban on lobbying for members of Congress or their staffs after leaving office. The ban should also apply to employment by a company that performs lobbying services.

• If a senator or congressman is absent more than 10 percent of the time for reasons other than illness -- including running for president -- his pay should be docked proportionately.

• Term limits for congressional staffers. No staff member of Congress should be permitted to serve in a job that pays above $100,000 a year for more than eight years. If we can't get term limits for Congress, let's at least clean out the professional staffers!

A smart candidate in 2010 will take elements of these proposals -- particularly the special prosecutor -- and put them in his or her campaign ads. Cashing in on Obama's unpopularity and his failed agenda is only half the battle. Capitalizing on the dismal state of congressional ethics is the other part!

RED SKY IN THE MORNING: CIC agents thought they were communist spies. The Philippine constabulary just wanted them dead. Two men made it out alive - one didn't.

Front Page mag

frontpagemag.com



click to visit this interesting enlightening web site

Buuckner on business links his web site

visit his actual site as mentioned on Glenn Beck show

ask him a question at
http://www.buckneronbusiness.com/blog/contact/


http://www.buckneronbusiness.com

who is George Soros and why is he trying to harm America?

In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder's agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:

promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

advocating America's unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

promoting socialized medicine in the United States

promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is "not clean air and clean water, [but] rather ... the demolition of technological/industrial civilization"

bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
advocating stricter gun-control measures
advocating the legalization of marijuana


see more at
www.discoverthenetworks.org

more voodoo economic numbers from Obama and comrades?

more voodoo economic numbers from Obama and comrades?

I can't believe and his team can generate all these new usual bogus numbers to justify thier spending.

Obama justifies the bailout of a few states by reducing food stamps for the year 2014.


what is this numberic / math bullshit?

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty

The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty

by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven





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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


see more at  glenn beck

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/44024/