Posted on 06/13/2010 8:45:06 AM PDT by rlmorel
Sometime in the early summer of 2007, the name Barack Obama began to register in my consciousness. I began to hear and see his name more often, and within the next year, a plethora of terms that I had heard of but not paid much attention to before began to show up in things I read, saw and heard on a daily basis:
"Economic Justice"
"Positive Rights"
"Living document"
"Black Liberation Theology"
"Saul Alinsky"
"Rules for Radicals"
And so on. In the summer of 2008, I decided to read "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, because I knew both of the leading main Democrat candidates were devotees of this man and his work.
Funny thing was, I couldn't get my hands on the book. I had determined not to buy it from the snippets I had seen, because I didn't want any of my money going to support anything that had something to do with the book. So I tried to get it from my library network, and I didn't receive the book until August of 2008 due to the backlog.
Reading that book told me volumes about the people who profess to following it as a bible. It explained a lot, and none of it is good.
I was going to dictate the entire thing and make an audiobook out of it to give to people such as myself who don’t want a single red cent to go to anyone associated with writing, printing or distributing that hideous work, but I couldn’t stomach hearing myself read it in a way that would make it easier on the ears to listen to (To put the inflection in the right places means you have to read it as if you believe it, and I gave up after one chapter.)
It is probably one of the most completely amoral, twisted works I have ever read. Given that Alinsky wrote a dedication to Lucifer, I shouldn’t be surprised. The dedication was taken out of later editions so as not to offend the clergy he was attempting to recruit, but the version I have still carries it because it is a later edition printed in the early eighties, and by that time, the publishers determined that clergy wouldn't be offended anymore. How things change. For those who are interested, THIS is the infamous dedication to Lucifer:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer
From what I can see, reading this book enables one to understand what makes Obama (and his followers) tick.
The very FIRST paragraph exposes very clearly what they are all about:
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. 'The Prince' was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. 'Rules for Radicals' is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."
It is unrestricted class warfare, pure and simple. And it is the bible of Obama, Clinton, and many MANY others in this country.
Now, as Alinsky relates to this subject (Because, remember, the two go hand in hand, Alinsky and Cloward-Piven) I had read pieces from the Cloward-Piven white paper a few years back, and I didn't give it much thought.
Here is a link to The Cloward-Piven White Paper in "The Nation" magazine, 1966 (Note: For those of you who don't know what "The Nation" magazine is, I suggest you read "Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey" by David Horowitz. (That will give you background, and a lot more besides.)
Before I read Cloward-Piven, I initially thought it was the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Then, after I read it, I thought to myself, these are the radical ramblings of some liberals that were, by now, nearly 45 years in the past. How on earth could this matter? This is old stuff, written by now dead or desiccated people, right? And besides, this couldn't happen in our country.
That's what I thought, until I saw this photo:
So, these weren't some hippies living out their aging years in Sedona, still trying to shake the flashbacks out of their systems. These were flesh and blood people still engaged at that time, dressed in the clothing of the establishment, and wandering the halls of power in the Clinton Administration. They not only weren't gone or dead, they were active participants in ACORN and other "community organization" groups.
The key thing in the Cloward-Piven paper is the concept that the government MUST guarantee income to all people, not require that the recipients go to school or training, work or have to divest themselves of their existing assets to get that guaranteed government income (I am NOT kidding here. If you don't believe it, read the paper!) and that the only way in their opinion that it can happen is to bankrupt the current system using techniques taught by Saul Alinsky. (note Cloward and Piven never mention Saul Alinsky, but if you have read "Rules for Radicals", then the conclusion is inescapable.)
Cloward and Piven (and their disciples, of which I suspect there are many) believe that the system will not change on its own, or through the legal legislative process. They present statistics in their paper of how many people are actually eligible for benefits from the government, and how many actually seek out those benefits.
They believe that through a variety of mechanisms the government inhibits and prevents people from taking advantage of government money, and the two they mention are: deliberate suppression of direct and active communication with those who are eligible to inform and actively assist them in getting what is due them, and secondly, the imparting of shame on the victims, so that they are shamed into getting by on less or working harder to get a job. (again, I am NOT making this up! They actually view the social exertion of shame in this context negatively)
So here we are, in the present. The housing market has imploded, and the ticking time bomb (the economy) has yet to detonate and cause social unrest on a large scale, Even though by all accounts, real unemployment in this country runs somewhere between 16-20%.
In the light of that, I look at all the things that have happened since the mid-Seventies, spearheaded the whole time by liberal Democrats.
The Community Reinvestment Act.
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act (boy, does THAT ever sound like something right out of "Atlas Shrugged") which mandated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize (purchase) these sub-prime loans to the tune of requiring them to buy 45% of all these types of loans.
Additionally, these organizations were populated primarily by people deeply invested politically in the Democrat party, and they cooked the books (Franklin Delano Raines, Jaime Gorelick) to force bonuses to kick in where they made tens of millions of dollars PERSONALLY from them.
The introduction by the Clinton Treasury department of ACORN and NAC (Neighborhood Assistance Corporation) into the process where they were allowed to shake down and intimidate banks and financial institutions much the same way the Rainbow Coalition does with business, further forcing them to abandon the normal banking practices to lend money to people who should have never got loans. Refusal on their part would have allowed groups like ACORN to intervene with the government to prevent and block banks from expanding business, build more branches or merge with other banks by withholding approval at the behest of those groups like ACORN and NAC.
People like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd virulently demonizing the people who were trying to warn everyone there was a storm brewing, even rebuffing the Bush White House that was trying to change processes that were out of control.
Given what I now know about Alinsky, Cloward-Piven and all the people in the Democrat Party who subscribe to the concepts laid out by them, one has to wonder: How much of this were people like Cloward and Piven (and others like minded) involved in these events and where we are now?
I understand people see the words Cloward-Piven (as I once did) and immediately, the specter of conspiracy theory sets in.
But what if you simply substitute out terms? What if you substitute "Home Ownership" for "Welfare"? Certainly "Home Ownership" is a lot less controversy-laden than "Welfare", and is less likely to cause people to jerk their heads up and exclaim "They want my tax dollars to do WHAT?" if they hear that money in some bill is being allocated to foster "Home Ownership" rather than "Welfare". But if you look at everything the Democrat party has done since 1974 (with some help from the Republicans, usually given in the form of "political correctness" to avoid the impression of being hostile to the poor, or the spirit of "reaching across the aisle") it doesn't look quite so benign if one knows and understands the concepts in Cloward-Piven.
They first took that steps of making huge sums of money available to people who should never have been eligible for a mortgage, and made it available as a government benefit. They used the full power of the government to do this, mandating Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to securitize these loans, coercing banks to make them available by threatening them with legal action and denial of government approval for business unless they complied with suicidal lending practices, and later by flushing huge sums of tax dollars into the programs to further incentivize the process.
They also complied with Cloward-Piven in huge advertising campaigns to those who are available for the loans...no money down, no background checks, you tell us you want to buy a house, you get the money.
THIS MEETS BOTH STANDARDS SET FORTH BY CLOWARD-PIVEN. THE GOVERNMENT BENEFIT IS MADE AVAILABLE, THEN AS MANY ELIGIBLE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ARE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE BENEFIT UNTIL THE SYSTEM COMES CRASHING DOWN OF ITS OWN WEIGHT FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE TO STEP IN AND WHOLLY MANAGE IT AS THEY SEE FIT.
And here we are today. We are like a person who has cancer, and has only dimly become aware that there is something wrong. We can see fine, we can breathe easily, we can go to work, we might even be able to lift weights or run five miles. But it isn't right, and we know it. There is something wrong. Many of us don't believe that it is impossible that the entire structure will come crashing down.
Many of us also believe that there are people who want change and will brook anything to get it. The people who believe that:
Then Ends Justifies the Means.
No Good Crisis should go to waste.
Those people would likely be fine if the changes they desire came about without any citizens losing their job, savings, health, liberty or life. But many of those same people would be willing to accept OUR loss of all of those things if that is what it takes to enact the change they would like to see.
” I am having trouble understanding the motives behind events leading up to where we are today. “
You are having no trouble whatsoever.
Your take is spot on the money!
Great read. I would like to especially thank you for linking to the original 1966 Nation article. I had searched far and wide looking for it, even at DTN, but had never actually read it.
To say that Obama, et al are following this philosophy is nothing more controversial than suggesting to a Constitutional originalist that they fully embrace the Federalist Papers.
...thanks for that photo of Clinton signing the ‘motor-voter’ act....I’ve saved it.
Sorry, buddy. Not only do I have a degree in political science, but some of my professors ended up in the Clinton administration.
You want to believe that your arguments are correct. Sadly, you opinions are well documented and thoughtful. We are on the path to self-destruction in a manner that will make the collapse of Periclean Athens seem like a minor calamity, and you skillfully point out the reasons. God help us.
Furthermore, I personally think that Obama has no interest whatsoever in cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf, because it is another perfect crisis that has fallen into his lap that he can exploit as a golden opportunity to further wreck America.
With Cloward & Piven right behind him!
BTTT
I wish I could say you are wrong, but I came to exactly the same conclusions myself.
bookmark.
My congratulations to you for a well thought out, well written piece. Thank you. This is very educational.
BUMP!!
From Wickipedia: "A Ninja Loan is a type of subprime loan. It was described as No Income, No Job, (and) no Assets loan because only things applicant had to show was his/her credit rating. The phrase was coined by HCL Finance as a name for one of their finance products. They were especially prominent during the United States housing bubble of the 2000s but have gained wider notoriety due to the subprime mortgage crisis in July/August 2007 as a prime example of poor lending practices[2]. The term grew in usage during the 2008 financial crisis as the sub prime mortgage crisis was blamed on such loans. It works on two levels - as an acronym; and allusion to the fact that ninja loans are often defaulted on, with the borrower disappearing like a ninja."
BTW...
That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD's affordable-housing goals on the department's 2004 decision —during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007. Though the story never mentioned Cuomo—whose three-year, eight-point goal hike exceeded Bush's more gradual six-point increase—it did quote his top aide William Apgar, who helped craft the 2000 policy, saying: "It was a mistake." Apgar, who now teaches at Harvard, conceded, "In hindsight, I would have done it differently." From here.
bump
Pretty much everything I know about ACORN tells me they are followers of the Cloward-Piven model.
BTW, half.com has a bunch of copies of Rules for Radicals, cheap.
Well, I did go out of my way to say that it was done with some help from Republicans for the reasons I laid out.
Before 1995, the last time Republicans controlled Congress was 1947. The republicans don’t come off scot-free, but these initiatives have been largely proposed and pushed by liberals.
My fingers are okay, though.
I agree. My take is that they didn’t see it for what it was (Dupes) and were too nice, wanted to be liked, and had advisers telling them they had to pass it/promote it or risk being branded as a racist or unfeeling towards the downtrodden.
That’s all I come up with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.