News
Cloward-Piven Obama link
Barack H. Obama took office as President in 2009. Ever since, conservative radio and TV hosts and columnists have long suspected that he is deliberately trying to strain America’s “social safety net” and use that to excuse turning America socialist. Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven published their blueprint for revolution in 1966. Everyone has known about this “Cloward-Piven strategy” ever since. Now, fresh evidence shows that Obama had a more direct link to Ms. Piven than he has ever let on.
The Cloward-Piven Obama link
Stanley Kurtz wrote on June 7 that Barack Obama once belonged to a radical leftist third party. Bill Clinton, the first Democratic President since Jimmy Carter, had thrown over his extreme liberal base. After the Republicans re-took Congress in 1994, Clinton had little choice. The leftists did not care. They formed the “New Party” in 1996, with this slogan:
Out with the Old Politics, in with the New Party.
The key: on January 11, 1996, Barack Obama joined this “New Party.” Kurtz wrote about this in 2008, during that campaign. Obama’s people denied it flatly and called Kurtz a “crackpot.” Kurtz stuck to his story. And no one paid attention.
People are paying attention now. Kurtz has new evidence. Among other things, he can show that Obama signed a “contract” with old “New Party” leaders to support their agenda while in office.
What has this to do with Richard Cloward or Frances Piven? Just this: Frances Fox Piven was a key New Party charter leader. Aaron Klein mentioned that today.
(Obama isn’t the only Democratic officeholder mixed up with the New Party. Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State in Michigan, is another one. Ritchie counted the votes for Al Franken’s tight Senate race with Norm Coleman. Did he, perhaps, finagle the count? Coleman thought he might have. Ritchie’s New Party tie gives him a stronger motive.)
The Cloward-Piven strategy
Frances Fox Piven. Photo: Moonbattery.com
Cloward and Piven explained their Cloward-Piven strategy in this paper in The Nation. (It came out on May 2, 1966, the day after May Day.) They titled their paper “The Weight of the Poor.” And they proposed to crush the American system literally under the weight of the poor.
The strategy is simple. The benefits that the law says that the poor can have, are far more than the poor actually get. So Cloward and Piven said: sign up as many poor people as possible onto the government dole. The dole could never keep up with the demand. So with millions of poor people demanding their benefits, the government would have to do something drastic. How drastic? How about a guarantee of a national income for everyone, whatever they do or whether they work or not. That was how Cloward and Piven wanted to end poverty in America.
Richard Cloward died on August 20, 2001. But his wife, Frances Fox Piven, lives on. And during the Occupy Wall Street summer, one could hear Ms. Piven crying out in frustration, “Where are the mass demonstrations?”
Obama uses Cloward-Piven
Ms. Piven might not have long to wait. Wayne Allyn Root, who ran for Vice-President on the Libertarian ticket, wrote about Obama’s economic policies two years ago. He said that Obama knew what he was doing, and sought to collapse the economy. Root cited Cloward-Piven as Obama’s blueprint, and listed these six programs that Obama had set up, or was trying to set up:
- Universal health care
- Cap and trade
- Making Puerto Rico a State
- Legalizing illegal aliens
- Stimulus and bailout programs
- Raising taxes on small businesses
Obama lost on 2 and 3 above, but made progress on the other four. The latest was his Executive Order that 800,000 illegal aliens get work permits.
On August 1, 2011, during the “debt ceiling” debate, Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker accused Obama straight-out of fomenting a crisis.
As the debt crisis continues to worsen, President Obama stands idly by an inferno with his arms crossed, shaking his head, and doing nothing other than kinking the fire hose and closing the spigot.
Any non-conservative could dismiss Root, DeAngelis, Mark Levin (see video below), and, of course, Glenn Beck as kooks. But we now see that Obama and Piven were thick as thieves. So maybe the idea of Obama following the Cloward-Piven plan isn’t so kooky after all.
http://youtu.be/-g6SpnTcMx8
[amazon_carousel widget_type=”ASINList” width=”500″ height=”250″ title=”” market_place=”US” shuffle_products=”True” show_border=”False” asin=”B00375LOEG, 0451947673, 0800733940, 0062073303, 1595230734, 1936218003, 0981559662, 1935071874, 1932172378, 1936488299″ /]
[ezadsense leadout]
Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.
-
Civilization4 days agoChina, Iran, and Russia – a hard look
-
Civilization3 days agoDrill, Baby, Drill: A Pragmatic Approach to Energy Independence
-
Civilization3 days agoAbortion is not a winning stance
-
Civilization1 day agoThe Trump Effect
-
Civilization3 days agoHere’s Why Asian Americans Shifted Right
-
Executive2 days agoFood Lobbyists Plot to Have It Their Way With RFK Jr.
-
Civilization4 days agoLet Me Count the Ways
-
Civilization3 days agoWho Can Save the Marine Corps?
It’s common knowledge that Obama is narcisstic. Added to that he doesn’t care who he dismisses or eliminates to curry the favor of his radical political base. His Illinois senate record and current policy agenda illustrate his crimes against humanity. One has no farther to look than to recall his support for Infanticide. His current support for American genocide also makes Obama our nation’s chief sex offender:
The President of the United States: A Sex Offender? – Why Obama’s support of the abortion industry is the worst molestation of youth
link to thechristianmessage.org
But, be that as it is, – and, getting back to Obama’s political manuevering, all one has to do is witness Obama’s posture actions to America. They are, for all intents and purposes, unpatriotic. He is bringing America close to bankruptcy. Here’s just a small sample to help substansiate my view that Obama is out to destroy traditional America, which is (really) part and parcel of the Cloward / Piven strategy:
Sample of Hate Crimes by Obama Against America
link to moralmatters.org
Sex offender? Wonderful! You know, given that elements of the rabid right are already claiming that Obama traveled to Mars in some secret experiment, why not just come out and say that Obama is actually Hitler who time warped out of the Berlin bunker and underwent cosmetic surgery in Argentina, thanks to Joesph Mengele – and that’s the reason why his birth certificate is fake.
It’ll be no less ridiculous than the rest of your racist tripe.
JT – Regarding your ridiculous response of June 18, 2012 at 9:22 am to my initial comment:
It never ceases to amaze me how you libs will obfuscate. Your response did not even come close to making an intelligent response to my initial comment. Nice lib try, but your response is unintelligent and inconsequential………..
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
–Ezekiel 16:49
It sounds to me that conservatives are trying want to turn America into a modern Sodom & Gomorrah. And before you say that God destroyed them because of homosexuality, you’re wrong. Nowhere in the Bible is that listed as Sodom’s crime.
Oh, no? Read again what happened when God sent two angels to evacuate Lot and his family. The townsfolk gathered outside Lot’s door and said that they wanted those fine young physical specimens to come out.
And I’m sure it wasn’t just homosexuality, though that was part of it.
You also forgot the immediate following verse: “they committed abominations before Me.” What do you suppose that was all about? An abomination is a sin of commission, not mere omission.
Show me as well, if you can, where the Bible gave instruction to any judge or king over Israel to give a guaranteed annual income to any of the people.
Finally: I don’t see how you can use the Bible to promote socialism, when you don’t even respect the Bible.
“Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”
“But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.”
The link between homosexuality and the sins is tenuous at best, but a godsend for religious bigots. Not only that, but you forget the delightful story of Lot offering his virgin daughters to the mob. What a nice man! Or is that the place of women in the Bible? Of course, the less said about what they did after Lot’s wife was turning into a table condiment, the better.
Who says I don’t respect the Bible? I respect (and have read) all religious books. Just because I don’t believe their stories doesn’t mean I don’t respect the books. The fact remains that Sodom’s sins was that they didn’t care for the poor. Given the nature of city states in those days, it’s pretty obvious that there is a case to be made for the state caring for its less fortunate.
And tell me, what are those less fortunate than you supposed to do? Starve to death? Live under bridges? Be hounded into work camps, far away from where you civilized people live? What’s so Christian about that?
You avoided answering before, so I’ll ask again – how many abandoned children have you adopted, or cared for? Or is that somebody else’s problem? Like the governments – and you won’t even pay to help them?
What happens to “those less fortunate” is not for the government to decide. Some governments in history have sent them to live under bridges and such. Any government that can enforce charity can enforce its opposite. Voluntary charity should suffice, and generally does.
The Bible provided for an interesting system for land-less people to get food: they could “glean” from the edges of any farm, and the Levitical statute provided that the farmer should not bother harvesting all the way to the edge. You try that today and you’ll run into all sorts of silly regulations.
Ah, Leviticus – the same set of Biblical guidelines that tell us it’s wrong to mix crops in the same field, cross-breed animals and wear garments woven from more than one type of fiber, among the more minor infractions. In this case, and unless I’m misunderstanding you, Terry, your support for Biblical “gleaning” sounds like conditional approval for theft of another’s property.
Merriam-Webster defines “glean” as “to gather grain or other produce left by reapers”. Now one might say that after a farmer has reaped the crop from his field, it’s no big deal to comb through the leftovers for sustenance. However, that’s still the farmer’s property, and in your “Ayn Rand World”, it’s up to him to decide to give the leftovers away – no stranger has the right to trespass onto another’s property and take something of value because the trespasser regards it as “leftovers”.
You need to be a little more consistent in your outlook, because you declare that “conservative” solutions should respect the Bible and also private property rights/ownership, and then pull out an example like this that clearly contradicts the two principles.
Interesting that another famous Old Testament story involves God sending the freed Jewish slaves from Egypt to wander the desert for decades in punishment, but rather than teaching them to be self-sufficient in the process, forces a dependency on external support by having their only supply of food literally fall from the sky. That’s about as radical a form of a welfare state as one can envision.
Yes, it is up to the farmer to allow gleaning, and how deep into his fields a gleaner may come. Then again, it’s worth it to that farmer, most of the time, to let people come in and glean. Otherwise, the leftover grains go to seed.
The Bible does say, on the one hand, to respect private property—but on the other, for the owners to use their property wisely.
“Yes, it is up to the farmer to allow gleaning, and how deep into his fields a gleaner may come.”
“Yes, it is up to the farmer to allow gleaning, and how deep into his fields a gleaner may come.”
Leviticus 23:22 says otherwise…
And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the LORD your God.
And Leviticus 19:10 is even more broad in it’s permissiveness…
And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.
So unless I’m reading this wrong or missing another relevant passage, God is telling the property owners pretty clearly to allow strangers and the poor unfettered access to their private property to take whatever gleanings can be found.
I’d say that you’re correct in that Leviticus 23:22 allows the farmer to decide what the boundaries of “the corners of thy field” mean when leaving full crops for the needy. However, trying to keep too much for yourself by marking out the smallest possible “corner” would be, pardon the pun, trying to cut corners with God’s will.
I don’t think any reasonable person would interpret this passage to mean that farmers should do all the work and then let random strangers take what they want. However, it’s a good example of the fallacy of using the Bible to justify 21st century debates about “private property” rights and capitalism when passages like this clearly state that God’s will requires, not suggests, that people of means do reasonable things to help others in need.
Terry –
I’m amazed at your patience in answering some of these comments on CNAVS. JT’s comments were certainly off the wall, ambiguous and defensive. Bless your heart Terry. You certainly give some of these CNAVS participants more than a fair shake……
There’s one little story you’re forgetting – how about Jesus taking food from those that had, to feed those that didn’t. Sounds pretty socialistic to me.
The feeding of the multitudes? (Yes, He did this twice.) He did one other thing that your socialist heroes never can: He multiplied a little bit of food into a lot. The original “customers” still got more than they had brought.
The fact remains that he took from the few to feed the many. He didn’t say, “Oops, sorry, no food? Well, that’s too bad for you.”
In fact he also said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
So, how exactly does not caring if people have enough to live on, or a roof over their heads, fit in with the second part of that? I’d love to hear how “love thy neighbour” doesn’t apply tothose who aren’t as wealthy and comfortable as you are.
And for that matter, if not the government, then who exactly decides what happens to those less fortunate? Business? Oh sure, but only if they can figure out a way to maximise profits out of the less fortunate. Like child labour and sweat shops.
Every person is responsible for doing what he can.
This kind of charity is not the government’s job. I could remind you that government usually does a rotten job, by the way.
As to putting people to work: I think you shrink too quickly from what you call “child labor.” The usual beneficiary of a “child labor law” is a union who wants labor to be short, so that they have more leverage. In other words, protection.
By the logic that I suspect that you apply, minors should never work summer jobs, either. That’s what your allies have achieved in many areas of the country.
No one’s looking to deny minors the ability to work, especially with summer jobs. That’s a diversionary tactic used to blunt criticism of conservatives trying to roll back child labor laws.
The most blatant example of this is in Maine, where TEA Party Governor Paul LePage is supporting a conservative/Republican drive to allow youths to work more hours in a week, and as late as 11pm.
The actual drivers for this become quite clear when you realize that “youth labor” is allowed to be paid at a lower rate than the state’s minimum wage for adults. The true purpose of these laws, then, is to help businesses be more profitable by using kids to do the same work as adults, for the number of weekly hours and late times of day that we’d normally only expect adults to be handling.
It’s also worth noting that this action is strangely defining “Youths” to include people aged 18-20, which most normal people would consider “adults”. All in the name of gaming labor costs at the expense of actual adults who need jobs.
It’s hard to be a good student when you’re spending 30 hours a week on a job, and working as late as 11pm each night before heading home. Their main job should be to get a good education, and this can include a healthy amount of work as well. If business owners need people to work more hours a week or later at night than the child laws currently allow, they should use adults for those jobs – it’s not like anyone’s going to get rich on a minimum wage anyway.
link to pressherald.com
[…] Cloward-Piven Obama link […]
[…] Cloward-Piven Obama Link by Terry A. Hurlbut, Conservative News and Views, June 17, 2012. […]
[…] CNAV: […]
[…] Conservative News and Views […]
[…] to play into the hands of those who want martial law? Or has he thrown in with the Cloward-Piven crowd? “The Weight of the Angry: Toward Martial Law Throughout the Land.” In other […]
[…] also appears here. See also CNAV’s own articles about Cloward, Piven – and Barack Obama – here and […]
[…] We have been looking at a system strategy that was created by two persons that has been titled “Cloward-Piven,” which was created to produce an economic disaster. Prior to Cloward-Piven, the government back […]