Saturday, October 31, 2015
Friday, October 30, 2015
UN official, Obama had told him that the US would be a Muslim country by end of 2016
At a meeting of the David Allen Lewis
“Eschatology Club” a year ago in
Springfield, Missouri, where I was
the featured speaker, I was told by the
organizers that in the previous monthly
meeting, Pastor Don Jones made a
disturbing statement about President
Barack Obama’s plan to Islamicize America.Jones went to one of his orphanages in Haiti after the massive earthquake there and met with a senior UN official, who said Obama had told him that the US would be a Muslim country by 2016, or by the end of his second term in office.
While that may seem far-fetched, it is not beyond the realm of possibility. First, Obama’s biological father was a Muslim— which makes the President a Muslim. His stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim who raised Obama as a Muslim in a mosque and madrassa (Islamic religious school) in Indonesia until age 11. His halfbrothers in Kenya are Muslims.
My wife Rachel, who is a radio and TV monitor in the Arabic language for Israel Radio in Jerusalem, has picked up many broadcasts indicating that the Arabs see Obama as a Muslim. In one broadcast prior to the 2008 elections, the Saudis claimed that “we will have a Muslim in the White House.”
Another Saudi broadcast said: “Obama’s job is to terminate the Shiite threat [Iran] and the Jewish threat [Israel]. And if he cannot do this, he should pack his bags and go home.”
America has always been a Judeo- Christian nation, but demographically at least, this is no longer true. While there are more than 250 million Christians in the US, the 6 million Jews are now outnumbered by Muslims who total about 20 million (9 million Iranians who fled after the fall of the Shah, 7 million Arabs and at least 3 million black Muslims, with the remainder being from Somalia and the former Yugoslavia).
Numerically, the Jews are now no. 3 or 4 along with the Hindus in the US, whose population is about the same as the Jews. According to Obama’s Inauguration Day speech, America is a “Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu” country. Numerically, he is right. So much for Judeo-Christian America.
In the June edition of Israel Today, I wrote about the worsening conditions of the Christians in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. International investment in Egypt has all but dried up since the Revolution. What international (Christian) corporation will invest in a country which is killing and ethnically cleansing its Christians? So the Egyptian economy appears doomed to collapse, which would create fertile ground for a takeover by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.
This would leave 70 million Muslims in Egypt in dire poverty.
The same applies to other countries in the Middle East that could be taken over by Islamic militants. In the case of Syria, the ruling Muslim Alawite sect will probably share the same fate as the Christians. This could lead to a flood of Arab Muslims to greener pastures in the West.
The Bible says Egypt will be a desolation and Egyptians will flee to other countries because the nation will be uninhabitable for 40 years (Ezekiel 29). If the official Syrian newspaper Tishrin is correct in saying that 600,000 Palestinian refugees and Syrians will march on the Golan Heights to reclaim their land, then a war with Syria is inevitable, which means that Syria will be a desolation as well (Isaiah 17).
The result could be tens of millions of Muslims fleeing to the US and Europe. President Obama would welcome these “brethren” on humanitarian grounds, and in effect, America would become a Muslim country.
I was just convicted and given a three-year jail sentence in Switzerland for helping defeat a plan to build minarets at the nation’s mosques by a 57 percent majority.
But the Muslims in Switzerland are already returning with a new minaret initiative. They are tenacious in their plans to Islamicize Switzerland and Europe. Why not the US?
Obama's Plan to Islamicize America
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
Benghazi attack was planned 10 or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012.
A recently-released and heavily redacted copy of a Sept. 12, 2012, Defense Intelligence Agency memo
to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff said "the attack was planned 10 or more days prior on
approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the
consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for
U.S. killing of Aboyahiye ((ALALIBY)) in Pakistan and in memorial of the
11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center buildings."
According to the memo, the attack "was planned and executed by the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR). BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British Ambassador, they have approximately 120 members." Rahman is serving a life sentence in a federal prison for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which killed six people in New York.
The leader of al-Qaeda in Libya and alleged mastermind of the attack on the US consulate and CIA Annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, Abd al-Baset Azzouz, was arrested in Turkey on November 13, 2014 by Turkish National Police in the city of Yalova, acting on intelligence supplied by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Turkey's National Intelligence Directorate (MİT). On November 24, 2014, Azzouz was deported to Jordan before being transferred to the United States, where it is believed he is currently being held.
Azzouz was born in Libya, immigrated to Manchester, England in 1994, but left Britain in 2009 for Pakistan, where he became a close lieutenant of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, before being sent to Libya to run al-Qaeda's operations there.
It is important to note, that Azzouz's al Qaeda operational headquarters was the al Tawhid (or al Tawheed) College in Derna, Libya, a city long known as a haven for radical Islamists. Azzouz's "college" had been authorized by Libyan Under Secretary of the Ministry of Education Fathi Akkari, who was, at the time of the Benghazi attack, one of the eight candidates for the post of prime minister and a hard core member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Explained
Dr. Lawrence Quill, chairman and professor of political science at San Jose State University. Explained the difference between communism, socialism, capitalism and democratic socialism -- in very professorial terms.
Capitalism — or really the concept of "liberalism" — arose in the 17th century, and centers on the right to private property. In Adam Smith's foundational "Wealth of Nations," Quill notes, "is recognition that capitalism is going to make the lives of a good majority of the population miserable, and that there will be a need for government intervention in society and the economy to offset the worse effects."
Socialism was in part a response to capitalism, largely through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Socialism focuses on the inequalities that arise within capitalism through a number of possible responses. Quill outlined some possibilities: "[T]he state might 'wither away' or collapse altogether, in others it would regulate the production of goods and services, in yet others it would become thoroughly democratic" -- all with the aim of reducing that inequality.
You can see that's where democratic socialism arises. That philosophy, Quill writes, seeks "democratic control of sectors of society and economy in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unregulated market and -- this is most important -- the kind of terrible authoritarian government that emerged in the Soviet Union."
Socialism was in part a response to capitalism, largely through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Socialism focuses on the inequalities that arise within capitalism through a number of possible responses. Quill outlined some possibilities: "[T]he state might 'wither away' or collapse altogether, in others it would regulate the production of goods and services, in yet others it would become thoroughly democratic" -- all with the aim of reducing that inequality.
You can see that's where democratic socialism arises. That philosophy, Quill writes, seeks "democratic control of sectors of society and economy in order to avoid the pitfalls of an unregulated market and -- this is most important -- the kind of terrible authoritarian government that emerged in the Soviet Union."
What you need to know about socialism
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been making waves as the only democratic socialist running for president. Here's what you need to know about being a democratic socialist and how it's different from socialism. (Alice Li/The Washington Post)
Communism "was the endpoint of Marx's ideas," Quill writes, though Marx didn't delineate what it would look like, exactly. "We find hints in works like 'The German Ideology" (1846) where there is a description of working life that is unalienated, i.e. creative and various -- we hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and become opera critics in the evening." During the Cold War, though, the idea came to be inextricably and pejoratively associated with the Soviet Union and with the elimination of private property. The term, in Quill's words, "served as a shorthand for all things un-American" -- which was the way that Trump used it.
Quill's most important point is that "all of these terms are 'umbrella concepts'; in other words, they are host to a family of related ideas, not all of them compatible with one another." We tend to use the terms concretely, which necessarily introduces inaccuracies. Or, as Quill put it, "they [can] serve as excuses not to think, as belief systems that discourage explorations of the mismatch between theory and practice and the inconsistencies of any grand theory."
So that's the college-level curriculum. Next, I scaled it back a bit and talked to Tori Waite, who teaches high school history at Del Mar High School in San Jose. After all, since most of us were first introduced to these ideas in high school, perhaps we just need a refresher.
"When we teach about the different types of economies," Waite said, "the first thing we do is we talk about economic questions. How is it made? Who makes it? Who gets to buy it? Based on the economy, different people answer those questions."
Simplifying Quill's explanation: "In a communist country, the government answers those questions. There's no private business. There's no private property. The government decides."
"In a capitalist society, the people make those decisions. The businesses, the market decides how much products will cost, how many there are, where it will be made."
"In the socialist system, there's a mix of both. The government operates the system to help all, but there is opportunity for private property and private wealth. That's generally how we talk about it." Back to Quill's point: A socialist government could control all of the means of production -- or it could, for example, use taxes to redistribute resources among the population.
Both Quill and Waite note that the United States is not a purely capitalist society. There are and have long been socialist aspects to how the government makes decisions and applies its power, while still striving to keep the marketplace as free as possible. And, of course, while allowing democratic decisions to guide what it does.
That's the nature of thing, and why college students spend so much time at coffee houses arguing over nonsense.)
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Vladimir Putin accuses US of backing terrorism in Middle East
Russian president tells gathering of politicians that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ and acting in self-interest
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has launched a stinging attack on US policy in the Middle East, accusing Washington of backing terrorism and playing a “double game”.
In a speech on Thursday at the annual gathering of the Valdai Club, a group of Russian and international analysts and politicians, Putin said the US had attempted to use terrorist groups as “a battering ram to overthrow regimes they don’t like”.
He said: “It’s always hard to play a double game – to declare a fight against terrorists but at the same time try to use some of them to move the pieces on the Middle Eastern chessboard in your own favour. There’s no need to play with words and split terrorists into moderate and not moderate. I would like to know what the difference is.”
Western capitals have accused Moscow of targeting moderate rebel groups during its bombing campaign in Syria, which Russia says is mainly aimed at targets linked to Islamic State. However, Putin’s talk of “playing with words” and other statements by government officials suggest Moscow believes all armed opposition to Bashar al-Assad is a legitimate target.
Putin received Assad at the Kremlin on Tuesday, and on Thursday he underlined that he considered the Syrian president and his government to be “fully legitimate”. He said the west was guilty of shortsightedness, focusing on the figure of Assad while ignoring the much greater threat of Isis.
“The so-called Islamic State [Isis] has taken control of a huge territory. How was that possible? Think about it: if Damascus or Baghdad are seized by the terrorist groups, they will be almost the official authorities, and will have a launchpad for global expansion. Is anyone thinking about this or not?”
He added: “Fifty years ago, the streets of Leningrad taught me that if a fight is inevitable, you have to hit first.”
Putin said it was “incorrect” to discuss whether or not Assad should step down, but said there was a need for dialogue.
“As far as I understand from my discussion with Assad, he’s ready for this,” said the Russian leader.
Putin said he asked Assad how he would react if Russia “found armed opposition groups who are really ready to fight terrorists” in Syria and decided to support them. Assad responded positively, according to Putin.
Asked how he saw the future of Syria and whether partition of the country could be an eventual solution, Putin said: “This would be the worst and most unacceptable option, and will not lead to the conflict being solved. It will make it worse and give it a permanent character. If you split the country into different parts they will fight among themselves forever, it will be unavoidable.”
This year the Valdai Club met at a luxury hotel in the mountain resort of Krasnaya Polyana, one of the venues for last year’s Winter Olympics. Putin arrived at the venue in a bright green Lada, part of an effort to promote the domestic car industry. He arrived late, keeping the assembled delegates waiting for nearly two hours before speaking.
A survey released on Thursday suggested that Putin’s approval rating had hit a record high of almost 90%, boosted by the Syrian air strikes. His rating was 58.8% in January 2012 before a crackdown on opposition and the annexation of Crimea.
“Such a high level of approval for the work of the Russian president is linked, in the first instance, to events in Syria, to Russian airstrikes on terrorist positions there,” said the stat-run polling agency VTsIOM.
On the sidelines of the Valdai Club conference, Russia’s ambassador to the UK, Alexander Yakovenko, said the “only logical way” to explain Britain’s behaviour in Iraq and Syria was a desire that Isis would depose Assad.
“The idea was to remove Assad using force, and to use force to seize Damascus. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but this is the only way to explain why de facto neither Britain nor the US has ever properly fought against Isis,” Yakovenko said.
He said with the number of airstrikes Britain had carried out in Iraq, “you could have destroyed the whole region”, but instead Isis had only grown in strength.
An analysis by Reuters of Russian defence ministry data showed this week that almost 80% of Russia’s declared targets in Syria have been in areas not held by Isis. Yakovenko said he had a meeting at the Foreign Office in London last week in which he asked for intelligence to be shared on the location of Isis targets in Syria, but was rejected. He also asked for information on the Free Syrian Army.
“We are looking closely at the Syrian Free Army. We understand there is not a single command centre, and that some of these divisions have different goals. But if among the FSA there are divisions that are really ready to fight with Isis, who is our main enemy in Syria, and if you think there are people or commanders or other contacts which could be useful and to cooperate with them, we would be grateful for such information,” he said. “We were again rejected.”
Source/Contributors
Friday, October 23, 2015
EMAIL: HILLARY DIDN’T KNOW DEAD AMBASSADOR’S NAME. Pay Attension to who she emailed
Good Friends Right!
The night a U.S. ambassador was killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton sent a message three senior State Department officials.
The recipients were Jake Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff to then-Secretary of State Clinton, Cheryl Mills, an adviser to "Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign" and Counselor and Chief of Staff to the Secretary, and Victoria Jane Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
“Cheryl told me the Libyans confirmed his death. Should we announce tonight or wait until morning?” Clinton says in the email, time stamped 11:38 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2012.
The email had as its subject line: “Chris Smith.” The murdered ambassador was Chris Stevens.
The Secretary of State didn’t even know the name of the U.S. ambassador to Libya — even after terrorists stormed an American compound and killed him.
Sean Smith, an information management officer with the United States Foreign Service, was also killed during the attack in Benghazi. They’ll no doubt say she meant him — but she actually got BOTH names of the dead wrong.
Source/Contributors
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Session 1 The Best Clip Yet of the Hillary Hearings
 |
| Trey Catching Her On Lies |
I would post what the Democrats are saying but they are only proving to be Hillary's Stag people for her media narrative. No relevant questions!
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Since 2011 the US has been waging covert war against Syria using Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists
Since 2011 the US has been waging covert war against Syria using Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists as its proxy mercenaries. Tens of thousands have died, millions have been displaced and still, the US seeks to pursue this deadly, destructive agenda.
With Iraq and Libya destroyed, Syria and Yemen under attack, if this tide of chaos isn't stopped in Syria now, a more dangerous confrontation faces humanity in the near future.
With Iraq and Libya destroyed, Syria and Yemen under attack, if this tide of chaos isn't stopped in Syria now, a more dangerous confrontation faces humanity in the near future.
Unions, you are fools. Obama's latest plans....
The Obama administration is about to power up a massive new executive action on immigration and it’s far scarier than anyone could have imagined. Last November, when Homeland Security released its ten memos commandeering immigration policy from Congress, Secretary Johnson included a vague plan aimed at benefiting the tech industry, innocuously titled “Modernizing the Employment-Based Immigrant Visa System.” But a secret memo recently leaked on an immigration law blog now reveals that this ‘modernization’ plan will not only fast-track hundreds of thousands of work permits to employment visa-applicants in violation of longstanding U.S. worker protection laws, but will enable hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to also receive work permits despite their unlawful status. As the full details leak out from the narrow clique of immigration lawyers and lobbyists advising the President, labor advocates are scrambling to warn the public.Under our current system, most guest workers wishing to remain permanently in the U.S. must arrange for their employer to “sponsor” them by filing an I-140 application, putting them in a queue for a green card. When a temporary (“non-immigrant”) guest worker reaches the front of the immigrant visa queue, they are allowed to submit an application to “adjust” their “status” to that of permanent resident alien. Getting to this stage is key. By regulation an adjustment-of-status applicant automatically receives a coveted work permit or “EAD”. An EAD allows the alien to work anywhere in the country and apply for welfare. It’s the central reason foreigners line up to come here and it’s what Obama’s attempting to distribute to illegal aliens under the DACA and DAPA programs. And for those on guest-worker visas, EADs allow them to stay in the country even when their “temporary” visa (like an H-1b) runs out.
The wait-time between filing an I-140 application and being allowed to file for adjustment-of-status (getting you the golden EAD) is regulated by the State Department and depends not only on one’s filing date, but also on one’s country of origin. But for the millions of aspiring alien workers from overpopulated countries like India, per nation visa quotas have meant a typical wait of 8 to 10 years to get their EADs—Non-skilled workers from any country are also given lengthy wait-times, as there has never been a shortage of poor Americans who need employment. This per-country wait-time is now what Obama’s unilaterally arranging to slash. From now on, filing an adjustment-of-status application won’t be necessary to receive an EAD and any alien who merely has an I-140 petition that’s been approved for a year can obtain the prized work permit.
The new executive action will cut the line of people waiting to get an EAD dramatically, a backlog of hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise have to wait patiently in line. This action will be a major encouragement to come here by any means possible, with a likely surge of thousands of EAD applications hitting an already backlogged USCIS in the first week alone. For the weak labor market faced by most American workers, it’ll be like a dam bursting.
This is a major coup for the axis of open immigration and Big Tech lobbyists. Big Tech would prefer to hire millions of temporary workers on H-1Bs over American workers because their visas are tied to their employer making them docile and unlikely to unionize. But flooding the labor market with current and future computer technicians, even with workers who’ll have greater flexibility, is much more important—it also gets rid of H-1B renewal and administrative costs.
Perhaps the most striking part of Obama’s move: illegal aliens will also be able to get EADs. All one needs to file an I-140 petition is an official ID; proving lawful presence isn’t required. The thousands of business-owners around the country who knowingly hire illegal aliens can cynically sponsor petitions whether or not the underlying applicant is legal. Ultimately, the USCIS bureaucrats will reject his or her adjustment-of-status application (after 10 plus years), but they’ll still be able to get that golden EAD.
Generally, I-140 petitions require aliens to submit a so-called Labor Certification showing that the petitioning employer has advertised for the position in a newspaper. This is meant to ensure that foreigners are not hired over American workers. As immigration attorneys have admitted, however, they show employers how “to do exactly the opposite”, for instance, by creating deceiving advertisements or disqualifying American interviewees on false pretences.
Filing costs for I-140 visa petitions are not cheap; with attorney costs, they can be several thousand dollars. But petitioning for an illegal alien-employee, with a promise to take the cost off his wages, could create a beneficial indentured servant relationship for employers. Larger employers may also file the petitions en masse if they feel a big crackdown coming (highly unlikely, of course). Furthermore, what’s to stop open-borders advocates, like La Raza, MALDEF, or LatinoJustice (where Justice Sotomayor was a board member) from creating a fund to finance the petition costs on behalf of employers? What about those groups’ billionaire-backers, like George Soros, Paul Singer, or the Ford Foundation?
The legal authority proffered by DHS in the leaked memo is predictably a deliberate misinterpretation of the law. These are the same DHS attorneys of course who, with help from immigration attorneys, produced the 2010 memo “justifying” the DACA executive amnesty program. They claim that two provisions of the Immigration & Naturalization Act, §205 and §274A(h)(3), give DHS Secretary Johnson discretion to issue unlimited numbers of EADs. Note that this is the same argument they’re employing in an attack against Texas’s amnesty injunction. The organization I work for, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, has eviscerated this argument in briefs submitted in support of Texas. Additionally, DHS has claimed the same authority for a separate move that would give work permits to spouses of H-1B-holders. We’re in the process of litigating against that rulemaking, which, if we’re successful, will be utterly disastrous for Obama’s amnesty as well as this new rule change.
Unlike the DACA executive amnesty program being challenged in the courts, USCIS is apparently opting to go through the normal regulatory process (although no details are up yet), complete with an opportunity for the public to submit comments. If enough patriotic American workers and their families flood the comment database, the agency may react like the ATF did when their proposed rule banning “green tipped” bullets was deluged with angry comments forcing them to rescind the proposal. If Americans care about their sovereignty like they do about their guns, Obama’s new immigration re-write won’t see the light of day.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy Obama is using to overload our system
My dear friends, isn’t it time we
paid the price to know your history, and to teach our history to others? History sets one of the
parameters of critical thinking. By controlling the “parameters” our critical
thinking skills are limited. Example: The ball is red, period. That is what
Common Core wants to do with our children. They do not want our children, or
grand children, or you to every say, “who said the ball is red, and who said
red is red, and who said that is a ball, and who said the ball is round?” I
hope you get the picture!That is an article for another day.
Today I would like to talk about the current strategy that is driving today’s overloading
of our systems and the philosophy and strategy behind it.
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 "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."
In papers published in 1971 and 1977 Cloward and Piven were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the liberal magazine The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty".
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).
Cloward and Piven's article 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."
They further 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.”
Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews,
Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially
between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though
not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for.[8] Political
scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that the data did not
support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in
welfare caseloads.
In his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy "created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction".
According to historian Robert E. Weir
in 2007: "Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between
1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired. But
my friends it is today.
Some commentators have blamed the Cloward–Piven strategy for the near-bankruptcy of New York City in 1975
Conservative commentator Glenn Beck referred to the Cloward-Piven Strategy often on his Fox News television show, Glenn Beck, during its run from 2009 to 2011, reiterating his opinion that it had helped to inspire President Barack Obama's economic policy. On February 18, 2010, for example, Beck said: "You’ve got total destruction of wealth coming ... It’s the final phase of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is collapse the system."
Richard Kim, writing in 2010 in The
Nation (in which the original essay appeared), called such assertions "a
reactionary paranoid fantasy ...", but he also pointed out: "The lefts gut reaction upon hearing of it--to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic
mystery--does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact." The Nation
later stated that Beck blames the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" for
"the financial crisis of 2008, health-care reform, Obama's election and
massive voter fraud" and has resulted in the posting of much violent and threatening
rhetoric by users on Beck's web site, including death threats against Frances
Fox Piven. For her part, Piven vigorously continues to defend the original
idea, calling its conservative interpretation "lunatic".
“Who said the ball is red, and who said
red is red, and who said that is a ball, and who said the ball is round”
Please share this history with whomever will listen. We may just be the last generation of critical thinkers. Ask your children “why” often, very often. Above all do your research...
More From Contributor:
AMERICA WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!!!
Obama is anti-american! His action record speaks for itself:
He is pro muslim
He wants to bring this country to its knees, and he is succeeding.
Look at all he has done during his presidency.
1. Fired all top generals
2. Reduced the military
3. ++ Contrary to advice from experts, he withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan paving the way for ISIS.
4. Apologized for America
5. Turned against Israel
6. Created Racial problems, not seen since the 60's.
7. *** Releasing all terrorists from gitmo
8. Traded terrorists for a trader
9. Won't call. Terrorism "Islamic Terrorism"
10. Seen more then once not saluting marines entering or exiting Marine One or Air Force One.
11. Blowing up empty buildings or a pick up truck here and there instead of giving ISIS hell, like our military is more then capable of doing.
12. Fires the defense secretaries when they disagree with him.
13. Refuses to close the border, again against expert advice (and the Will of The American People may I add).
14. Obama care, free college, both meant to bankrupt everyone.
15. Instrumental in turning AMERICA against cops..creating a possible chaotic lawless society in America. (so that he can pronounce Marshall Law, and become Dictator in Chief may I add).
16. No representative in Paris this past weekend, because it was geared toward being anti Islamic Terrorism (which he refuses to utter those words -hahahaha!! ).
Now let's examine his past:
1. His pastor and mentor, as he described him is Pastor Jeremiah Wright, as anti-american as they come.
2. His old pal, Bill Ayers , anti-american and home grown terrorist.
3. Key advisor - Al Sharpton
4. Hippie pot smoker.
5. Foreign aid student from Indonesia.
6. Not a qualified American to even become President.
7. Card carrying member of The Brotherhood.
8. Parents were both members of the Communist party.
9. Never held a 'real'job.
10. Doesn't have a valid legal Social Security number.
11. Lied on Mortgage Application papers.
12. His 'Change' platform is bringing downward Change to America and the World.
Source/References:
Obama’s Cloward-Piven Weapon of Mass Destruction
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
House Just Passed “Donald Trump Act” – Sends Big Message to Obama!
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is shining a massive spotlight on President Barack Obama’s amnesty agenda.That’s why the U.S. House of Representatives just issued a major defeat to Obama! Known as the “Donald Trump Act,” House Resolution 3099 takes direct aim at cities which don’t enforce federal laws about sanctuary cities.
The House passed it by an overwhelming 241-197 vote. This is a big deal!
Sanctuary cities have come under heavy scrutiny in the wake of Kathryn Steinle’s death on July 1 in San Francisco. Authorities charged Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez with her killing. Lopez-Sanchez, who is in the U.S. illegally, has a history of felony convictions and has been deported five times.via The Hill
Critics of the sanctuary laws say such policies encourage people to immigrate to the U.S. illegally at the expense of citizens.
“A refuge for whom? A sanctuary for whom?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. “A sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Or a refuge for a convicted felon with a 25-year-long criminal history?”
Democrats accused House Republicans of bringing up the bill in part because of real estate mogul and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s focus on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities; they dubbed the bill the “Donald Trump Act.”
“Just a few weeks into his campaign and Donald Trump has a bill on the floor of the House. That is better than some of the senators he’s running against.” Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said mockingly.
Democrats can mock this legislation all they want. It’s clear that Republicans are getting serious about exposing the shameful problems caused by millions of illegal aliens flooding into this country.
Do you support the Donald Trump Act? Please leave us a comment (below) and tell us what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)