Cloward/Piven Strategy

[Phatscotty]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html

Using borrowed money for a band-aid bailout of the economy should seem backwards to most people. However, it likely is a planned strategy to promote radical change. Those naively believing that President Obama is simply rewarding his far-left base, and will then move to the political center, must wise up.

The assumption that Obama will need the nation to prosper in order to protect the 2010 mid-term election incorrectly assumes that he esteems free market capitalism. He does not. Rather than win through superior ideas and policies, the Democrat plan for success in the mid-term elections is to win by destroying political opposition.

Obama adheres to the Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals method of politics, which teaches the dark art of destroying political adversaries. However, that text reveals only one front in the radical left's war against America. The Cloward/Piven Strategy is another method employed by the radical Left to create and manage crisis. This strategy explains Rahm Emanuel's ominous statement, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal is to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.

According to Discover the Networks.org:

Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation... [Emphasis added.]


Making an already weak economy even worse is the intent of the Cloward/Piven Strategy. It is imperative that we view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care through this end goal. This strategy explains why the Democrat plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes billions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse.

If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. Democrats, quick to not waste a crisis, would consider that a lost opportunity.

The Cato Institute reports that the plan will harm a faltering economy, intentionally causing increased job losses leading to increased demands for the aforementioned programs. Even the jobs to be created are set apart to render social justice, not economic revival. Robert Reich believes new infrastructure jobs should not go to white construction workers. Meanwhile, workers at Microsoft, IBM, Texas Instruments, and the retail market find themselves experiencing the life of the welfare poor.

If highly educated and trained workers continue to lose jobs and business falters as a whole, where will these jobless workers go? Could this be construed as revolutionary social reorganization that puts the underachiever above the achiever? Where is the future economic strength when jobless professionals collect welfare and unemployment while dreaming of a minimum wage job? For whites, there's not even the hope of a good paying construction job.

Because these programs are financed with deficit spending, the effect of the Cloward/Piven Strategy becomes doubly destructive. Talk about a perfect storm! The Democrat stimulus plan is a mechanism whose goal is the destruction of the traditional American way of life. It is bitter irony that the American taxpayer will actually fund the destruction of his own ability to live according to the values of our Founding Documents. It is not alarmist to identify this situation as a coup d'etat.

As the flow of money from the top of the economy dries up, job losses and mortgage busts will mount exponentially. The Democrat stimulus plan provides for welfare expansion but not for a robust economy that creates high paying jobs. Is this what Obama means when he warns, "It's going to get worse before it gets better?" If we are not bailing out corporate America so they can regain profitability, we must conclude Obama is working toward another end goal. Recognizing these attack methods reveals the only logical response -- an unwavering wall of "No!"

[spurgistan]

lol.

[Phatscotty]

lol.

I know, I know...right

[nagerous]

lol.

It's a complicated case, Spurgistan. Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have yous. Fortunately I've been adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regiment to keep my mind, you know, limber.

[Phatscotty]

Ya can't know what ya don't know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2 ... n_strategy

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called 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 "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".[2]

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national "solution" to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national "solution" to poverty)


The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s strategy is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:
“ The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3] ”

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]
Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5]
Reception and criticism

Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because "Great Society programs had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people."[6]

Fast Forward to today

What Obama and I Learned at Columbia University

by Wayne Allyn Root, former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee

The economy in deep decline; the disappearance of jobs; the annihilation of the middle class; the demonization of business owners; the destruction of small business with onerous regulations and taxes; the overwhelming debt and spending of out-of-control government; the millions of Americans losing their health insurance; and the unimaginable increase in dependency through welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, and now free health care.

It’s all easily explained when you hear what Obama and I learned at Columbia.

America’s decline under Obama isn’t due to mistake, ignorance, or incompetence at the hands of a community organizer. It’s a purposeful, brilliant plan hatched at Columbia University to destroy capitalism, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values, and the American Dream.

I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them.

As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him. Strange story, but I digress.

What matters is what Obama learned and experienced at Columbia. My classmates hated America. They spoke with glee about one day ”taking the system down.” They blamed America for “unfairness, racism, inequality, and lack of social justice.”

Recognize those words?

My classmates proudly called themselves socialists, communists, and Marxists. Even though almost all of them came from wealthy families (or perhaps because of it), they hated the rich and despised business owners. They talked about how the “white power structure” had to be dismantled, business owners bankrupted, and capitalism destroyed. Everything in their minds was based on “social justice.”

Sound like the policies of anyone you recognize in the White House? Does “We have to spread the wealth around” ring a bell? How about “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”

How about Obama’s hatred of Republicans and refusal to negotiate with Congress? It’s clear he thinks he’s “morally superior” to conservatives. That attitude was born at Columbia too.

In 1981 when a student burst through the doors to our political science class and screamed “The President has been shot. They’ve assassinated Reagan”… my classmates yelled, hugged, high-fived, and jumped up and down cheering the death of a Republican. Today most of my classmates are either in government with Obama, or controlling the mainstream media. They talk about “moderation and compromise,” but always remember 30 years ago they cheered for the death of a Republican.

But, there’s more. We were all taught a simple, but brilliant plan. My classmates discussed it 24/7. It was their “American Dream.”

By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.


It was called “Cloward-Piven,” after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they were taught to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them.

It’s the exact plan Obama has been implementing. The centerpiece is Obamacare.

Obamacare isn’t about health care. It’s about bankrupting the middle class and addicting it to government dependency. It’s about redistributing wealth from the middle class and small business to Obama’s voters (the poor and unions). Its goal is to wipe out the last vestiges of middle class America, creating a two-class society: the super rich and the poor (both beholden to Obama).

Obama learned well, it’s working to perfection.

So that explains the plan. But how do you implement it? We were taught that at Columbia too.

A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself “moderate” and a “uniter,” even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them “evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist.” Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are.

Obama learned well.

The plan taught us to hide your true intensions (in other words- lie, misrepresent, commit fraud). So Obamacare is about “saving the uninsured,” as opposed to income redistribution.

Government regulations are to “protect us from global warming,” as opposed to wiping out small business.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is about “fairness,” as opposed to creating 12 million new Democratic voters.

High taxes are to “create equality,” as opposed to starving Obama’s political opposition.

Obscene spending is always about “helping widows and orphans,” as opposed to bribing Obama’s voters.

Higher teacher salaries to reward terrible performance are “for the kids,” as opposed to enriching teachers unions so they can funnel hundreds of millions to Democrat politicians.

Bailing out GM was to “save jobs,” as opposed to saving bloated auto union pensions.

It’s always about lying to coverup the Marxist agenda of destroying the middle class, redistributing wealth, and putting big government in control of our every move. Why the lies? We were taught at Columbia that “It’s for the greater good” and “We know what’s best for those people” and ”The ends justify the means.”

Obama learned well.

But the key to it all is to “boil the frog slowly.” We learned at Columbia to set the fire low, so the frog wouldn’t complain. By the time he realized what was happening, he’d be cooked.

That’s why every Obama speech starts and ends with “I’m here to save the middle class,” while his actions are annihilating them. He’s boiling the frog slowly. By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer, and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.

The root (excuse the pun) of every Obama policy, everything Obama does, and everything happening to the U.S. economy, all started at Columbia. The entire Obama agenda to overwhelm the system, wipe out the middle class, bankrupt small business, and destroy capitalism, was hatched at Columbia. Obama may not have attended class, but he learned well.

He should have received the Karl Marx Award for “Student Most Likely to Destroy America.”

[_sabotage_]

Care to look for similar info on Bush?

Facsist nazi backing grandpa, Iran Contra connected to JFK assasination father, and drug running 9-11 tool of a son.

Obama is uniting the Bush admin and his own. He is a uniter.

[thegreekdog]

Oh for fucks sake.

[Phatscotty]

Care to look for similar info on Bush?

Facsist nazi backing grandpa, Iran Contra connected to JFK assasination father, and drug running 9-11 tool of a son.

Obama is uniting the Bush admin and his own. He is a uniter.

I got a good story for ya. Even heard of Michael Medved? He's this radio talk show host,establishment Republican type (non-TP), and I think he's one of the smartest and wittiest people I have ever heard speak. Smart as the devil.

if interested


A long time ago I got through on his radio show and because I had a problem with his support of the Patriot Act, and he was all "if you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to worry about" and I was all like "if you have a reason to tap someone THEN GET A DAMN WARRANT!" But anyways I was really big into the NWO 1 party stuff too, and we got into Bush's grandpa, this was around 2002-3. And I brought it up about the Nazi funding, and he was all "Puh-lease.....there is no evidence of that blah blah" and he called me a Liberal nut ball (right then I realized he disconnected me) and he used my comment to dismiss all my Patriot Act comments.

Anyhew.....about a year later, the documents concerning the Nazi funding matter were declassified, and the truth came out (for those who make a habit of waiting for the truth) and I called this Medved guy back up and got right through, and I think he was waiting for a call like mine all day so he could spin it out and forget about it. When I brought up the declassification, he did a 180 from a year earlier and said "well, yes, his grandpa did sit on the board of a bank that was closed down for aiding Hitler, and they did fund the Nazi's, but it was a really long time ago, people didn't know the extent of the Nazi's crimes yet, and there was a Socialist fervor going on in America itself in the 30's and even FDR was emulating Hitler" basically admitting it happened but minimized it's impact and importance. It goes to show the way they silence people and use the truth to bash people based on their knowing the ignorance level of the unwashed masses.

The JFK and the Bush thing are the same thing

[_sabotage_]

I'm quite interested in the disconnect as well, not his disconnecting the call, but that so many people say there is no evidence and then when presented with the evidence, they say well, but it doesn't matter.

But the actions do matter and have devastating results. I think people are just happy to try to wipe their hands of it, as if they are no longer responsible for the actions of those they empower. And this is encouraged by those in power.

Is Obama trying to destroy the founding principles of the country? Yes, he has claimed his seat at that wretched table. I will never oppose them violently, but I will stand for this country's freedom to the end.

[Phatscotty]

I'm quite interested in the disconnect as well, not his disconnecting the call, but that so many people say there is no evidence and then when presented with the evidence, they say well, but it doesn't matter.

Just look at Obamacare

But the actions do matter and have devastating results. I think people are just happy to try to wipe their hands of it, as if they are no longer responsible for the actions of those they empower. And this is encouraged by those in power.

Is Obama trying to destroy the founding principles of the country? Yes, he has claimed his seat at that wretched table. I will never oppose them violently, but I will stand for this country's freedom to the end.

Christie would continue down the same path I think. Maybe domestically he could do a few things. I think presidents still have that power. But with the international stuff and the military stuff and the banking stuff, they follow orders. Being deep in debt sucks.

[warmonger1981]

What this country needs, this country will never produce. Freedom with God as a center. Welcome to heathen land. Tickets come in the form Fed Reserve notes and there is no stopping once you get on. If you think ONE person can change what America and her corporations have done in the last 100 years your crazy. We are fucked. The chickens have come home to roost.

[_sabotage_]

Yes, but if we can provide the tools to the disenfranchised to live well with their own means, we create an opt out. The better the opt out, the better alternative that exists to relying on the Fed notes.

[Frigidus]

Obama rewarding his left wing base, hahaha, good one.

[warmonger1981]

Thd problem is that what has been created ( government ) can not be reversed unless people are willing to give up a bunch of shit. Problem is both sides blame the other. The economy will slowly collapse until a new world government evolves. If America goes down we bring all of humanity down with us. So most countries will go along with the plan of world government with corporations running shit behind the doors. Globalism is the answer to America's thirst for fascist capitalism. Remember Thomas Barnett argues the war in Iraq marks " the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization ". This is all about Globalism kids.

[thegreekdog]

Obama rewarding his left wing base, hahaha, good one.

I've been waiting for some conservative to make the argument that the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism).

[BigBallinStalin]

the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism)

[thegreekdog]

the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism)

You're an idiot.

It was worth the wait.

[BigBallinStalin]

the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism)

You're an idiot.

It was worth the wait.

[Phatscotty]

Obama rewarding his left wing base, hahaha, good one.

I've been waiting for some conservative to make the argument that the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism).

Why have you been waiting? Are you really that eager to do another spiel about how Obama isn't a Sociaist?

What motivates you?

[thegreekdog]

Obama rewarding his left wing base, hahaha, good one.

I've been waiting for some conservative to make the argument that the president is siding with industry and finance to speed up the process of eventual socialism (because we need to do that before we get to socialism).

Why have you been waiting? Are you really that eager to do another spiel about how Obama isn't a Sociaist?

What motivates you?

I'm motivated by correcting morons.

[mrswdk]

Your the moron if you think that Obama's agenda is heading in any direction other than 'towards socialism'.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tour the moron if you think that Obama's agenda is heading in any direction other than 'towards socialism'.

[2dimes]

Socialism is awesome. Giving away industry so no one can make a living while paying the higher tax required to pay for it? Not so awesome. Unless you own the industry and will be increasing profit by cutting labour costs.

I don't.

[thegreekdog]

Your the moron if you think that Obama's agenda is heading in any direction other than 'towards socialism'.

Since I can't prove a negative, the onus is on you and your ilk to prove that the president's policies move us towards socialism. Let's take a few examples:

(1) Bailouts.
(2) Dodd-Frank Act.
(3) Affordable Care Act.
(4) Any tax acts signed by the president.

Please explain how these policies/laws move us towards socialism.