Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy?  Me neither. 

[that’s just wingnut paranoia.... right?  ...riiight?]

This appears to be Part II, or something sufficiently similar as to make no nevermind, though why it would be at American Thinker instead of at the original site, the InterToobs sayeth not.

Further digging [seeking the apparently as-yet-unwritten Part II to the above] led to this further description.  In addition, The Delphi Technique is described.

I remember first hearing about the Delphi Technique a couplafew years ago from a well-meaning but slightly dingy acquaintance.  She nodded at my skepticism [which I thought I had so carefully disguised] and said, “Just look for it.  You’ll know it when you see it.”

And I saw it.  In “Citizen Advisory Committees” [CAC] and even in rregular Planning Commission meetings.  It’s subtle, and it’s very effective.  Members of one CAC even admitted to one another in a public meeting that they really didn’t know what their goal or purpose was there—and they had been meeting for over a year, twice a month.  And a month after that meeting, out came “their” report.

...to preserve the illusion that there is “…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.”

They call ‘em/us “stakeholders” and seek their “input” at every turn in order to “achieve consensus.” Watch for those words and then pay close attention. 

So please.  Kick this around and tell me if I’ve been tragically naive? or am I becoming an over-stressed, delusional Child of the Black Helicopter* Brigade?

* and don’t even ask me about that story

Just as good as in written form.

I got no idea how to embed this so just *clicky*clicky*

If someone asks ya, “what is all this stuff about ACORN, anyway—I never heard of ‘em,” here’s a little primer on the whole dealio.  [yes, the muzak gets irritating, but the info is good.]

“After I whip his you know what in this debate, we’re going to be going out 24/7,”

THAT’ll learn ‘im!

Hud Bannon: Well, I’ve always thought the law was meant to be interpreted in a lenient manner. Sometimes I lean one way and sometimes I lean the other.

Breaking: William Ayers Mentioned Obama in his “A Kind and Just Parent” Book

Well, ok - Ayers mention of him in that book does sound like simple, if cheezy, name dropping.  Yet…

Charles Krauthammer:

...

Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber—even a repentant one—he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’s unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?

No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with—let alone serve on two boards with—an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

...

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. ... Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale.

...for which remark Krauthammer will be decried as raaacist in 3… 2… 1…

Well, maybe it is better that the McCain camp is planning a “graceful” loss—a withdrawal with honor sort of thingie....

I mean, if he can’t go toe to toe with a homegrown Chicago thug, how could we expect him to face off with a 7th Century nutbag like Amadinnerjihaddi or the Princes of Saud.  Hell - he’d just give ‘em concessions and buy ‘em a Coke, anyway.

If McCain - or his staff - think it would be “out of character” for him or Palin to fight Obama with facts, maybe we oughta take ‘em at their word.

Srsly.  If saying aloud that one’s opponent has current and long-standing ties to organizations which believe that Saul Alinsky wasn’t Marxist enough might deemed raacist, that would make it bad and wrong to do, no?

While Uh-bama, POTUS, continues to “rub raw the sores of discontent” maybe we, with out silly jobs and dreams of the creation of wealth ought to just cling harder to our guns and Bibles and STFU.

Really.  If bringing up old history might cause some “wingnuts” to shout truly terrible things at and wave thunder sticks at MSM members during rallies ...well, maybe it’s not worth pumping up the Weimar-like rage* of the average “Joe Six-Pack.” Clearly we just can’t handle it.

What we really had better do is get back to our normal, every-day lives and do what we were meant to do: make more pies.  While our betters, those capable of the nuance necessary to conduct politics, carry on without our gross, ignorant interference.

Time to for US to simmah down and be more respectful.

_________________
* stupid NYT will redirect to a sign in page:  just google “The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama” and that linkey takes ya thru.  Take yer BP meds and RTWT]

NB mouseover the linkys for a tip on their contents.