An Extraconstitutional Coup

I know that everyone who pays even a little attention to conservative news and views is probably aware of Saul Alinsky’s influence on the democrat party, but some still aren’t as familiar with another major tenet of the dems: the Cloward-Priven strategy.

This is a slightly different treatment of how Obama and his liberal democrats in congress are currently using Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals along with the Cloward-Priven Strategies to execute an extraconstitutional makeover of the United States federal government in order to redistribute wealth.

saul-alinsky-obama-luciferAs you probably know, B. Hussein Obama was well educated in the techniques espoused by the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s rules have become second nature to Obama, so in order to successfully defend against them, it’s is imperative that we, his opponents, become familiar with them as well.





Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s a refresher on Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

  1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have
  2. Never go outside the expertise of your people
  3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy
  4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of Rules
  5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon
  6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy
  7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag
  8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up
  9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself
  10. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive
  11. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative
  12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Stop and think. How many examples can you identify that illustrate how the radical democrats use these techniques to further their agenda? I’ll bet you can think of several.

One of the favorite ways that the radical left uses Alinsky’s rules is assassinating someone’s character. They seem to really enjoy attacking their opponents and reducing that opponent’s standing in the public’s eye to one of being practically worthless.  This favored activity utilizes several of Saul’s rules starting with rule 12 and continues with additional flavoring added by rules 5, 6, 8, and 10.

Sarah Palin is an excellent example. When she was selected to be John McCain’s Vice Presidential candidate, she became a designated target.

They immediately blasted her with a full-bore application of Rule 12, with assists from Rules 5 and 8. When they targeted Sarah Palin, they ridiculed her, they created an image of a backwoods hick who went to a no-name college and did little more than shuffle papers as Mayor of a dinky small town in Alaska. “She’s a joke,” they said. They pushed that package, over and over, through the bought-and-paid-for OM (Obsolete Media) until the uninformed public became convinced that she was that Alaskan rube that they portrayed. Unfortunately, some still think that’s who Sarah Palin really is.

And of course, another prime example is President Bush; they used the same techniques (Rules 5, 8, and 12) on him. They ridiculed his intelligence (he couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted him the “c” and the “t”), created an image of a lying war monger, polarized him (he was for the fat cats and didn’t care about the “little” people), and applied relentless pressure to reinforce that caustic image – which in fact, is still continuing to this day. They have pushed the negative lies hard enough and long enough that they have become (in the minds of some) de facto “truths.”

He made the mistake of not fighting back and refuting the many lies that were told about him, consequently his approval suffers for it.

But Saul’s rules are only part of their arsenal. There’s another basic philosophy that contributes to the left’s playbook.

We should look to things that are happening today and analyze them according to the techniques espoused by Professors Cloward and Piven, the two left-wing loony academics who developed their so-called “strategy.”

The Cloward-Piven Strategy

Cloward-piven flowchartThe Cloward-Piven strategy is a socio-political strategy developed by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Priven (a pair of radical leftist Colombia University professors) and first published as an article in the liberal magazine The Nation in 1966.

It’s a blueprint for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.

Remember the phrase coined by Rahm Emanuel, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste”?

The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into chaos, followed by economic collapse.

It calls for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty“.

If some of this begins to sounds familiar, it is probably because Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky wrote in his book Rules for Radicals: “Make the enemy live up to their 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.”

They designed the strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution, all the while blending in Alinsky concepts to bring about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth – sound familiar?

In the article published in The Nation, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create: By crisis, they meant a publicly visible disruption in a targeted institution. Crisis could 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.

The Cloward-Piven strategy’s main goal is to impose new stresses on targeted systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Something like the recent EBT card collapse?

To that end, they enlist two more techniques to achieve the goal. 1) Organizing previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits, but not currently receiving all they can qualify for, and 2) identifying new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits, thereby overloading the system.

Collapse of the system is the ultimate goal.

One of the most visible proponents of the strategy used to be ACORN – remember them? Though the ACORN entity is now defunct, the players play on under new names. Their voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy in order to overwhelm election management.

  • They make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
  • They register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
  • They overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of the deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they seek a democrat administration in Washington, D.C. that will re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state. And now, with Organizer-in-Chief Barack Obama in the White House and the democrats holding the majority in the Senate, they are in a position to exert the full force of both anti-capitalistic philosophies towards their goal of overwhelming the system. Remember that once the system collapses, Obama, et al, will ride in on their white (maybe black) horses and save the day with their new Socialist system.

As part of their Cloward & Piven plan, two of the most cherished concepts of our constitutional republic are under attack.

1. Citizen voting. Democrats have succeeded in eliminating any sort of real voter identification, thus allowing untold numbers of illegal votes to be counted. In a close election, illegal votes could change the outcome (remember Al Franken?). This activity can only continue to fester and do irreversible damage to that cherished right – our right to vote. But when any group is allowed to affect election outcomes by illegitimate means, our rights are in danger. Our next congressional mid-term elections in 2014 and more importantly, the 2016 Presidential elections are both ripe for a Cloward-Piven crisis – especially if the left smells defeat. Voter intimidation, illegal votes, outcome challenges, recounts, and legal action will be used to overwhelm the election process for any race that isn’t a landslide – you can bet the farm on it.

2. Congress. Congress has become an elite hierarchy no longer representative of the people. Too many congresspersons hold their allegiance primarily to the party rather than to the country. The Cloward-Piven crisis strategy is hard at work in congress and is easily detectable in the writing and passage of bills since January, 2009.

Obama and the dems have created artificial crises that require “immediate passage” of legislation which includes their “solution” embedded deeply within a bill so large and complex that it is impossible to read and comprehend before voting. This technique has become the norm for congress. They are spending this country into oblivion and throwing away our rights without even knowing the details – and our so-called representatives don’t seem to care.

If it seems like we are moving from one “crisis” to another, we are, and it may not be by accident, it’s possible that it is all part of a plan and they’re depending on crises to trigger a collapse of one or more of our systems.

For example, events of the past week show that if a national collapse of our EBT system occurred, we could expect riots to follow and that alone could provide president Obama with a “justifiable” reason to institute martial law.

Martial Law?

Martial law is generally imposed on a temporary basis when civilian authorities fail to maintain order and security or provide essential services. Martial law can also be imposed when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of the law becomes widespread.

Either the President or Congress can declare Martial Law. It is most commonly used by a Governor and in that case, applies only to that state. Martial law is more complex than what I’ve presented here and more information is available here, if you so desire.

True, the likelihood of Martial Law being declared is remote, but we would be wise to consider that it could happen. Military forces could be deployed to subdue the crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain the general order, if the President felt the need to do so.

That’s a scary term “general order.” How might that be interpreted? Perhaps like the way that democrats use “interstate commerce” to justify practically anything? Could it be that the democrats will interpret “general order” to stifle conservative radio, the Internet, or any form of dissent? Any bets on how long after that before he started collecting firearms? To maintain the “general order,” of course.

Martial law has been used by governments to enforce their rule over the civilian population. These incidents can occur when the government is threatened by popular protest; to suppress political opposition; or to stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections.

Some say that Obama is preparing for just that opportunity. I don’t know. I never thought that I could envision any time when a President of our United States might consider such an action, but with Barack Obama, I wouldn’t put it past him.

Based on recent events, we must be very wary of the possibility that we are being prepared for a collapse. We need to be prepared for the chaos that would certainly ensue if martial law were to be declared. Unlikely though it may be, it is not impossible.

Good luck to all patriots – we may need it.


Tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to An Extraconstitutional Coup

  1. BrianR says:

    Here’s where a huge problem arises if the socialists try to declare martial law… a problem for THEM.

    First of all, every member of the armed forces has sworn an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION, not an oath of personal fealty or loyalty to any PERSON. That’s coupled with the military principle that no soldier is allowed to obey an unlawful order.

    So any attempt to wrongfully impose a state of martial law is going to face a HUGE problem in getting active duty personnel to enforce it, particularly since the majority of military personnel are of conservative ideology.

    There’s another practical aspect to consider. The number of FORMER military people in the country is vastly larger than the number currently on active duty. I think our total active duty military numbers about 1.4 million, many of them deployed out of the country. But there are, I’d guess, at least 5 times that many in the country no longer on active duty. But just because we’re no longer in uniform doesn’t mean we’ve forgotten everything we knew when we WERE wearing the uniform.

    Then there are the tens of millions of non-vet gun owners in the country who wouldn’t stand still for such an action. Add them to the millions who aren’t CURRENTLY armed, but who would join an uprising and get guns from others. For example, I own over 40 guns and a LOT of ammo. How much would I personally need? Which leaves me with plenty of armament to “loan out”.

    The government would be further hampered by their inability to deploy effective heavy weaponry. After all, they’re not going to use artillery and destroy domestic property and infrastructure. Same problems arise for armor, air support, drones, and other methods. So, they’re stuck fighting a small-scale infantry war in which they’re vastly outnumbered. They’ll lose, plain and simple.

    Just consider the LA Rodney King riots. A very small uprising localized in one section of town, carried out by unarmed rioters, and no cops or troops would even enter the area for over three days. Anarchy prevailed. The rioters had to basically tire out and go home before any “authorities” even entered the area. Now multiply that by orders of magnitude to see what I mean.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Brian, I don’t disagree at all that declaring a full-blown martial law would be a problem for the administration, that’s putting it mildly, it would be chaotic for the entire country.
      It would forever label HIS administration to be first one since WWII to declare martial law – and during peacetime at that. I think that Barry’s legacy would be badly tarnished and history would not look kindly on him regardless of the “justifications” he may claim. I think that his legacy is important to him.

      And you’re right about our military firing on civilians – not many would do something as traitorous as that. Nor would our vets and LEOs accept an Obama-issued order, most would automatically oppose it and fight back against any limits he might try to place on our civil liberties, physical or legal.

      But declaring martial law isn’t an either/or proposition. An order can be issued to limit specific civil liberties, like rounding up the Japanese-Americans during WWII, for example, or “temporarily” suspending freedom of movement, etc. So it wouldn’t have to be a “shut everything down, round everyone up, search everyone’s homes and confiscate their firearms” type of order – it could be measured, but still imposing some sort of control over his target group.

      And, finally, the courts (the Supreme Court) still has the power to uphold an order or dismiss it. That raises an interesting proposition: if the Executive branch says “go” and the Judicial branch says “stay,” does Congress have the tie-breaker?

      So, in summation, I’m just saying that if the right crisis presented itself, I wouldn’t put it past Obama to use it creatively to expand his domain.

      • BrianR says:


        I think “limited martial law” is a non-starter. First of all, the country was united and very unsophisticated during WW2, which is no longer the case. In a country as hostilely divided as we are now, any moves along those lines would be met with loud and fierce resistance.

        Do you think ANYBODY would comply with restrictions on movement? I sure don’t. Nobody’s going to comply with “some sort of control” being imposed; all hell would break loose.

        Hell, cops can’t even prevent “flash mobs”. How are they going to stop people doing whatever they want, especially to oppose any such laws, in this era of Twitter and the internet?

        Further, again, the same problems arise in enforcing any such “control” as do in carrying out a full imposition of martial law: getting it enforced. All the same issues would arise.

        Are they going to try to shut down roads? Freeways? City streets? How? how many cops are there, especially that would try to enforce such an unenforceable order?

        Frankly, it’s just not possible.

        • Garnet92 says:

          It looks like we’re just going to disagree on this issue, Brian. To relegate any kind of “limited martial law” as a non-starter, I read as believing that there is no such thing as “limited” martial law. According to what I’ve read, the imposition of limitations on rights is stipulated in the declaration order itself and is not a preordained list – thus, it can be whatever Barry (or whomever) wants it to be.

          You apparently think that NOBODY would comply with restrictions on movement. Maybe you wouldn’t, but I’m sure you saw what happened in Boston following the marathon bombing. The issuance of a “stay in place” order was honored by thousands because they believed themselves to be safer “in place.” I don’t believe that widespread ignoring of a presidential order (it probably wouldn’t be characterized as “martial law,” perhaps a Presidential Directive, or such) would happen – at least not for several days, perhaps even weeks.

          I also don’t agree that the same problems would be faced by a “limited” presidential order as a full-boat martial law declaration – depending on the area covered and the limitations imposed, the issues might be the same, but the magnitude would be different.

          I wish I had your confidence that a de facto martial law event is not possible, again I say that if Barry has a need for circumventing one or more of our civil liberties, he’ll find a way to do it. And further, I believe that most of the country would go along with his instructions, at least for a time.

          Note that under none of my scenarios have shots been fired – if any civilians are fired on, all bets are off.

  2. Clyde says:

    Excellent post, Garnet. I sure hope we get responses from liberal trolls defending the strategy. Great comment from Brian as well.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks Clyde, yep I can’t wait for blistering retorts like, “you teabagging sob,” etc. for daring to expose their Messiah to be a traitorous incompetent using Marxist tools to change our United States to more like HIS liking.

  3. Kathy says:

    Excellent information, Garnet, as always. I’ve heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy for years, but never looked into it much.

    As with any group, there will be leaders and followers. Other than obama, who else would you classify as leaders of this strategy? Who are the ones that have studied and implemented this?

    Hypothetically, let’s say the whole scenario plays out – where do they see themselves in the pecking order of their new kingdom? What do you think the reaction from the Republicans will be?

    I agree with Brian that martial law will be extremely difficult to declare, but it would still be good to see if we can figure out more of their plan.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Regarding Cloward-Piven, the strategy has been influential in top-level democrat politics for decades. For example, the two were guests of Bill Clinton at a White House signing of related legislation.

      Their techniques forced New York City to declare bankruptcy in 1975 when their methods were successful in getting so many on the welfare rolls that there were only two working for every one on the welfare rolls.

      And they were later mentioned (by name) by Rudy Guiliani, then New York City Mayor, when he exposed their deliberate economic sabotage of the city’s welfare system by overloading it.

      As far as who are proponents, I don’t know that – but the techniques are now seminal writings in the democrat playbook, so I’d expect any community organizer or progressive activist to be trained. I do know that Hillary Clinton is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky and was trained in his methods. I would expect her to have a working knowledge of Cloward-Piven methods.

      I think the “pecking order” will be much as it is now. You can almost look at the democrat’s longevity list in congress and see who the movers and shakers are. The RINOS will wail and gnash their gums (no teeth) and the few with cojones (Lee, Cruz, et al) will try (ineffectively) to fix things – until we can take over the Senate and retain the House (with veto-proof votes).

  4. bullright says:

    Five stars great article.

    • bullright says:

      If I was an alien from Venus I could look at that and see the predicament the American people are in. Sarah Palin, like her or not, is just one of many examples. They can push the negative far enough that even Republicans and some conservatives accept it. And it does not take as long to complete their process as a terrorist plot to unfold. (a scary thing itself.)

      >“Obama and the dems have created artificial crises that require “immediate passage” of legislation which includes their “solution” embedded deeply within a bill so large and complex that it is impossible to read and comprehend before voting. This technique has become the norm for congress. They are spending this country into oblivion and throwing away our rights without even knowing the details – and our so-called representatives don’t seem to care.”<

      Whether reps don’t care or don’t understand the strategy employed doesn’t really matter. If they don’t understand, then it’s a huge negative and weapon against us just the same. But if they don’t care, they are complicit. It gives Marxists the ability to operate with immunity either way. When you see only the handful of Congress that really understand, it doesn’t bode well for us. What good is having any strategy of opposition to it if you don’t apply it?

      • Garnet92 says:

        Actually Sarah is a PERFECT example. I wrote 8-10 pieces on her back around election time and I never found anything to dislike about her – she is one amazing lady and one that I’d vote for POTUS or again as VPOTUS..

        You know, until these bills were exposed as being thousands of pages, it never occurred to me that our representatives didn’t read them. There is NO EXCUSE to vote on a bill that a rep hasn’t read – NONE. If there’s too much to read in the time allotted, there are two solutions, allot more time before voting or, keep the bills to a reasonable length – break them into smaller bills, etc. The problem with that is that the kickbacks and payoffs are buried as deeply.

        And finally, my answer to your final question (rhetorical, no doubt) is NONE. And it looks like we have only a few in congress who are standing in the way of the Marxists..

        • bullright says:

          Hey Garnet, exactly, and why shouldn’t they read them? We all have to read the crap they throw at us, just to see what is coming down on us.

  5. Mrs AL says:

    Great essay, Garnet. Can’t think of a thing to say except … until “We the People” tell the DCites to go fly a kite in a lightning storm, it will keep slipping away from us and those generations behind us will likely curse us one day.

    I personally have always tended toward the The Cloward-Piven Strategy as the basis for what is going on. I have seen the Alinsky whoha as the tactics for the CP strategy.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Thanks Mrs AL, I think a lot of conservatives have known, instinctively, what was going on even if they couldn’t identify the methods as Cloward-Piven – that is, intentionally flooding a system with “static” so it couldn’t operate effectively.

  6. Hardnox says:

    Garnet, a stellar post as always. Zero and Hitlary are Alinsky disciples. he taught those tactics, she wrote her thesis on it.

    Regarding martial law, just look at what happen in Boston in the aftermath of the bombing. The phrase is “stay in place” in lieu of martial law. Same thing. They shredded the Constitution. The LEO community high-fived themselves and the citizens patted them on the back.

    I’m still looking for who gave the order to fire 258 rounds at the younger brother hiding in the boat. It wasn’t the terrorist who fired the first shot. He was found unarmed.

    • Mrs AL says:

      I agree with you and Garnet. In order to institute martial law, it will be necessary to “train” the population to simply obey and not question, given the number of gun owners in the country. It’s almost seems like a de-sensitization process of sorts. Make sense?

  7. Garnet92 says:

    Thanks Nox. Right on about Alinsky’s two most accomplished students.

    As I was writing this piece, that Boston situation kept coming to mind as a de facto implementation of martial law whether it was called that or not – amounted to the same thing. And, like you say, everyone involved got a treat and a pat on the head, with a “good dog” for following orders.

  8. Terry says:

    Great essay, Garnet.
    Thanks for shedding a bright light on these issues.