Topic: Cloward-Piven: The Ultimate Goal of Gunwalker?

[rickl]

From Pajamas Media.

We've long suspected that the goal of Gunwalker was new gun control laws, but what if something bigger is involved?

Read the whole thing, and the many outstanding comments.

[charlesoakwood]

Take Operation Fast and Furious in Arizona, the two suspected operations in Texas, Operation Castaway in Tampa, and the newer allegations of “Gangwalker” in the Midwest — they make sense only in the larger context of a Cloward-Piven framework.

Yes these are different names being used to give the administrators and operatives legal loopholes in order to obfuscate all aspects of action and involvement.

Operation Castaway provided weapons to destabilize Central American countries and to help keep the cartel drug supply lines from Central and South America open.

 

This is an erroneous assumption.  Hugo Chavez has bought weapons enough, the ratio is 3:1 for not only Venezuela but also Equador, Nicaragua, and Salvador.

A logical speculation posted by “eon” is that the short-term goal of Gunwalker was to increase violence in Mexico. This would drive more Mexican citizens northward as illegal aliens, seeking respite from the violence in their home country. Their plight would provide the administration a way to pitch the DREAM Act as an act of kindness to political refugees and another step towards amnesty.

More than a year ago, it seems, I asked the question, "what were we going to do when Mexicans by the hundred came running across the border seeking asylum from the terrorists ravaging that nation?  Are we going to turn them away as FDR did the Jews?"  

Operation Fast and Furious doesn’t make sense as a anti-cartel operation, but it makes perfect tactical sense as a way of implementing Cloward-Piven, something that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Secretary Napolitano, and Secretary Clinton have long embraced as followers of those radicals and Saul Alinsky. Gunwalker is the start of a coup d’état against the republic by the very souls entrusted to guard it.

 


The truly shocking thing, not that this isn't bad enough on its own, is the cumulative actions taken by this govt.
They have this act, the Boeing/NLRB take over in SC, the Gibson guitar, signing Kyoto, GE-*GMC-Chrysler cronyism, the CommunityReinvestment scam, bogus banking muscle, Fannie & Freddie.  Today we are living on a thin veneer of Americana.  If we don't have a real election in 2012...

*ETA: DETROIT (AP) The United Auto Workers union won $5,000 signing bonuses and the possibility of sweeter profit-sharing checks as part of a new four-year contract with General Motors Co., two people briefed on the talks said Saturday.

[Pandora]

More than a year ago, it seems, I asked the question, "what were we going to do when Mexicans by the hundred came running across the border seeking asylum from the terrorists ravaging that nation?  Are we going to turn them away as FDR did the Jews?"

Gee, Charles, way to load the question with the inclusion of the Jews.

Yes.  We need to turn them away because we can't feed, clothe and house them all and ourselves too.   

[charlesoakwood]

It's not loaded at all, the Jews were escaping death by Nazi and we turned them away, the Mexicans are escaping death by narco terrorist.  Is not escape from death the same for all innocent peoples?
How many thousands a year must be murdered before the balance qualifies for asylum?

And good misdirection, the purpose of the statement was to illuminate the horrific problem south of the border which by the article is being aided and abetted by this administration.

[Pandora]

It's not loaded at all, the Jews were escaping death by Nazi and we turned them away, the Mexicans are escaping death by narco terrorist.  Is not escape from death the same for all innocent peoples?
How many thousands a year must be murdered before the balance qualifies for asylum?

And good misdirection, the purpose of the statement was to illuminate the horrific problem south of the border which by the article is being aided and abetted by this administration.

I'm aware of the horrific problem south of the border; there was no misdirection intended -- are you actually chastising me for choosing one point among many? -- merely a question to illustrate that the millions of Mexicans are not being targeted in Mexico for being Mexican, as the European Jews were for being Jewish.

So, I repeat:  we cannot and ought not take them on as asylum-seekers because we don't have the resources.  And we doubly oughtn't if Duh Wun's tertiary goal is to impose them on us in the form of illegal Dem votes.

[charlesoakwood]

It's not loaded at all, the Jews were escaping death by Nazi and we turned them away, the Mexicans are escaping death by narco terrorist.  Is not escape from death the same for all innocent peoples?
How many thousands a year must be murdered before the balance qualifies for asylum?

And good misdirection, the purpose of the statement was to illuminate the horrific problem south of the border which by the article is being aided and abetted by this administration.

I'm aware of the horrific problem south of the border; there was no misdirection intended -- are you actually chastising me for choosing one point among many? -- merely a question to illustrate that the millions of Mexicans are not being targeted in Mexico for being Mexican, as the European Jews were for being Jewish.

So, I repeat:  we cannot and ought not take them on as asylum-seekers because we don't have the resources.  And we doubly oughtn't if Duh Wun's tertiary goal is to impose them on us in the form of illegal Dem votes.

I didn't say we should accept them I asked the question,"what were we going to do when Mexicans by the hundred came running across the border seeking asylum from the terrorists ravaging that nation?  Are we going to turn them away as FDR did the Jews?"  

Jews were seeking asylum  because they were being murdered by the thousand, Mexicans are being murdered by the thousand.  Yes in Mexico the innocent deaths are random and not so for the Jews but for each death is just as certain.

[rickl]

I saw another article a couple of weeks ago that suggested that the goal of the Obama administration may be to bring down the Mexican government and turn it into a "failed state".  The flood of illegal immigrants would turn into a tsunami of desperate people fleeing for their lives, and claiming refugee status.  Under various international treaties, we would have to accept them.  Cloward-Piven, indeed.

[Pandora]

I saw another article a couple of weeks ago that suggested that the goal of the Obama administration may be to bring down the Mexican government and turn it into a "failed state".  The flood of illegal immigrants would turn into a tsunami of desperate people fleeing for their lives, and claiming refugee status.  Under various international treaties, we would have to accept them.  Cloward-Piven, indeed.

You mean to say we signed treaties requiring we ruin ourselves in order to save another country's refugees?  By whom and when was that done?

[rickl]

You mean to say we signed treaties requiring we ruin ourselves in order to save another country's refugees?  By whom and when was that done?

No, I didn't say we signed treaties to "ruin ourselves", but I'm pretty certain we have signed treaties dealing with refugees and human rights.  I can't name them off the top of my head.  I'm not a legal scholar.  I doubt they existed before World War II, but after that war there were millions of refugees in Europe and Asia.  Since then there have been countless wars in the Third World, many of which also generated refugees.  The UN and other international organizations have set up rules and frameworks to attempt to deal with the problem.

If Country A deteriorates into civil war, civilians who don't want to be caught in the crossfire will pack up their belongings and flee.  If they cross the border into Country B, what is Country B to do?  Turn them back at gunpoint?  Shoot them?  Well, sometimes they do.  In other cases, they will be settled in refugee camps run by the UN, Red Cross, or other organizations.  These camps are almost always temporary, until the war ends and the refugees return home, or until they can get a third country to accept them.  (The notable exceptions are the Palestinians, where the grandchildren of the original refugees still claim refugee status.)

We also see a variety of churches involved in the sanctuary movement.  They probably regard it as Christian charity, and their duty to help the helpless.

Up until now this has been an academic exercise for the United States.  We've never had a neighboring country melt down.  Refugee problems have always been something that happens "over there" in other countries.  So I'm pretty sure that any attempts to turn back people who claim refugee status would be regarded as violations of international law.

Now I'm not saying that Obama is deliberately trying to destabilize Mexico.  It was just in an article I read recently, and I don't remember where I saw it.  Likewise, the headline of the article that is the topic of this thread has a question mark at the end.  We're "just supposin'" and trying to come up with possible explanations for Gunwalker.  Obviously, the way to prevent this scenario is to keep Mexico from deteriorating further, and building the border fence.

I should add that deliberately creating and exploiting a refugee situation on our own border, besides being an act of monstrous evil, is also a perfect Alinsky tactic:  "Force your opponent to live up to his own rules."

[Pandora]

No, I didn't say we signed treaties to "ruin ourselves", but I'm pretty certain we have signed treaties dealing with refugees and human rights.

Okay.  Then I'm saying it, because that's what will happen to us should any of the "supposin'" comes to pass as regards Mexico, and I don't give a crap what the UN or Europe has to say about possible treaty violations.

Are you of the opinion, as Charles seems to be, that turning away the results of the supposed Obama destabilization of Mexico would be similar to FDR turning away Europe's Jewry?

eta:  I guess I don't understand the point of whole exercise and because the vibe I'm getting from you and Charles is one of "throw up our hands/what can we do?", if I understand correctly, which I may not.

[rickl]

No, I didn't say we signed treaties to "ruin ourselves", but I'm pretty certain we have signed treaties dealing with refugees and human rights.

Okay.  Then I'm saying it, because that's what will happen to us should any of the "supposin'" comes to pass as regards Mexico, and I don't give a crap what the UN or Europe has to say about possible treaty violations.

Are you of the opinion, as Charles seems to be, that turning away the results of the supposed Obama destabilization of Mexico would be similar to FDR turning away Europe's Jewry?

I don't think that's a good analogy.  The European Jews were well-educated and hard-working people, many of whom had high IQs.  They would have been an asset to any society.  The Mexicans are mostly illiterate peasants, many of whom have low IQs.  They would be a net drain on society.  (That's the whole point of Cloward-Piven, after all.  Overload the system until it collapses.)  Besides that, the sheer numbers involved are vastly different.

eta:  I guess I don't understand the point of whole exercise and because the vibe I'm getting from you and Charles is one of "throw up our hands/what can we do?", if I understand correctly, which I may not.

I don't know what Charles is saying.  I'm saying we better nip it in the bud before it gets that far.  So far the illegals are not claiming refugee status.  Build the fence, enforce the law, and round up and ship as many back as possible.  Prosecute businesses that hire them, AND any church that gives them aid and comfort.  Cut off federal funding from "sanctuary cities".  (The chances of the current regime doing any of that range from slim to none.)

If it ever gets to the point where millions of them are streaming across the border with legally recognized refugee status, it may be checkmate for the U.S.

[Pandora]

I see and understand, and agree, actually, with all but the last:

If it ever gets to the point where millions of them are streaming across the border with legally recognized refugee status, it may be checkmate for the U.S.

"Legally recognized" by whom?  You're referring to the aforementioned vague treaties?  Or the current administration?

In any case, bullsht to that, rickl.  It will be our undoing, you have to know that, and what I've been saying all along is there is no good, gawdamned reason to assume checkmate because of it, because we don't have to meekly accept it from either Duh Wun or the UN.

[rickl]

So what's your recommendation?

[Pandora]

So what's your recommendation?

I believe it's a foregone conclusion it will be the start of the hot part of the coming civil war.  So, my recommendation would be to start shooting.

What's yours?

[rickl]

By then, we'll be shooting at Mexican refugees, UN peacekeepers, and the entire Federal government.  It would be much better if the war goes hot while we still have only one group of targets.

[Pandora]

By then, we'll be shooting at Mexican refugees, UN peacekeepers, and the entire Federal government.  It would be much better if the war goes hot while we still have only one group of targets.

I agree, but I believe you're underestimating just who "we" will be and how vast a group, notwithstanding military folk, current and prior, who are not going to abide UN "Peacekeepers" here and an illegal alien invasion.

What I further believe is, if a Cloward-Piven refugee strategery was intended through Fast and Furious, the jig is also up, so we're war-gaming over nothing at this point.

[Libertas]

The real answer to such a scenario is obvious, as are the reasons why at present it will not be possible to act on - internment of refugees, invading Mexico to crush the troublemakers in government and in criminal organizations, set up a new government and return the refugees to Mexico.  So as long as Obamakov is in power we need to redirect his attention, and this is best acheived by states taking action and enlisting civilian help.  If the bastard's Regime wants a civil war, by all means lets have at it.

[Glock32]

Here's one proposal that would immediately unmask the true intentions: propose granting permanent "guest worker" status to any Mexicans who want it, but as a condition they must undergo surgical sterilization or implantation of contraceptive devices.

This would address the supposed "concerns" cited by immigration advocates, in that it would continue providing a source of cheap labor, and would allow them to live and work here without risk of deportation, would make them part of the legitimate economy, etc, etc. "They just want a better life" and "they do the jobs Americans won't do" -- well here's your shot amigo. No loin droppings, that's the only catch. Deal?

But they would never, ever entertain such a proposal. Why? Because it's about none of the weepy sentimental clap-trap they always cite. Instead, it's all about detonating a demographic time bomb on us.

[Libertas]

Heh.

You know though, that even offering that is dangerous...they'll do what they always do, allow the one, deny the other, they win, we lose...