DOJ Investigates CIA Over Use of "Severe Techniques" During Terrorist Interrogations

According to one of the wire services - "Several key Democrats and officials with Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday that the potential prosecutions are a start, but they said the probe does nothing to investigate the actions of officials who sanctioned the brutal interrogation program."

So, lets see just who is upset over this... the left-wing headhunters who blame the Bush administration for everything since the crucifixion, the bleeding hearts who always side with those who have done wrong, and the American Communist Lawyers Unlimited who expend great time, energy and money defending anything designed to destroy the foundations of our nation. (It's always good to look past the heroic-sounding names to find out who the players really are and identify their true agenda.)

What is it they are upset about? Probably the only thing even close to a "severe technique"in this "brutal interrogation program" is waterboarding... which is something akin to a face washing on steroids. After waterboarding, comes those vicious techniques of threats and intimidation, and embarrassment.

Look at this word: TERRORIST. The first six letters spell TERROR, and the last three letters mean "practitioner of". So the CIA interrogators were dealing with PRACTITIONERS OF TERROR.

The first step in a successful communication - of any kind - is to use a language that the other party understands. It logically follows that if the party with whom you are trying to have a successful communication deals in inflicting terror upon others, then that is a language he or she will understand.

The next consideration is fluency in the language of the communication. In order to be effective, the interrogator must be generally as fluent as the person with whom he/she is trying to communicate, to insure the message is not misunderstood, without having to use the nuances of beheading, maiming, castration, murdering, or setting fire to their captive terrorists to "get their point across". If you are communicating in a language which is foreign to you, you do not want to be embarrassed by your clumsiness/inabilities in that language! Terrorists understand TERROR, so let's terrorize them... and feed them nothing but pork products!

Obama and The Cloward-Piven Strategy

The subtitle for this post should be "How To Destroy A Capitalist Economy And Remain Under The Radar". I first became aware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy today. To say that its goals are disturbing would be an major understatement. The thrust of it is this - the strategy's goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy.

Like most people, I had never heard of either Cloward or Piven, or their destructive strategy. Developed in the mid-1960s by Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, two Columbia University sociologists, much of their strategy was drawn from Saul Alinsky, Chicago's notorious revolutionary Marxist community organizer. Alinsky, who was also a mentor of Hillary Clinton, wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals: "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one."

The mechanics of the strategy are a bit more complicated. The supporting tactics include flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly cranks to a stop; overloading electoral systems with successive tidal waves of new voters, many of them bogus; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding exotic, subprime mortgages for low-income Americans with little hope of repaying their loans. These toxic mortgages are an important source of the foul smell engulfing the entire financial bailout.

The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial "shock troops," in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the city government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.

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

1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Here's a diagram of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, including Barack Obama's involvement, that I borrowed from SharpRightTurn.com:

(The only addition I would have made to the above diagram, would have been to include, by name, the ACLU within the block labeled "Communist Party USA & Other Radical Socialist Groups". The ACLU had, as one of its co-founders, Roger Nash Baldwin (January 21, 1884 – August 26, 1981) who was a noted social activist who held Communist views in his youth, yet continued to promote a Socialist agenda. He was the ACLU's executive director until 1950.)

Once you have the name "Cloward-Piven Strategy", there is a plethora of information available on the Internet. How has this apparently intentional plot to destroy that which made the USA great, managed to avoid discovery by the mainstream media? Wellllll... it didn't exactly. The Washington Times had an article on C-P back in October of 2008, but if you didn't get the Washington Times that day - which is probably 90% of the country - I can't recall ever seeing it in print, or hearing about it on any of the broadcast media. Can you say "complicit coverup"

Blogs - including this one - are not a particularly reliable source of "news". They are, instead, a source of personal analysis (i.e. - opinion) of the news which has been reported. The purpose of my blog is not necessarily to educate people (although there are many who could use educating), but to prompt folks to think about what's going on around them, and then form their own conclusion.