Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Former White House Staff Economist and Budget Analyst Sees Obama Connection with Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

September 28, 2008

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

By James Simpson
America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama's connections to his radical mentors -- Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama's radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama's life comprise a who's who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn't fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?


One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent - the failure is deliberate. Don't laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation's wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of "crisis" they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical read more, please click the link at the top (this is a very long article).

Stumble Upon Toolbar


  1. There are actually three articles in the series by Jim Simpson, and the third is very powerful.

    The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis

    The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

    The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings

  2. 1. Sam Walton had it right. All employees should have stock in the company they work for. The problem Sam had is that when an employee had a need for funds, Sam had no way to prevent the employee from selling his or her stock, thus Employee owners were reverting back in-fact and more importantly in mind-set, to just an hourly worker. Sam's idea, had it worked as well for the employees as it has for the overall Walmart Corporation, would have moved thousands of workers well up into the middle class. Some of the first employees who did not sell their stock became firmly established in the upper middle class, if not wealthy.

    Social Security is facing a deadline for providing future retirement income now that the baby boomers are entering the picture. Our resources are not going to be able to meet these demands without just printing more and more paper debt. If the government can guarantee certain savings in bank accounts through the F.D.I.C., why not establish a program that would require that every employee own a regulated block of stock (Retirement Account) made up of stock in the company the employee works for and, so the employee will not have all his retirement eggs in one basket, include in this retirement basket high rated stocks from other non-competing companies. It seems to me the government could guarantee these programs as they do through the F.D.I.C regulated plans. This surely would be less expensive to taxpayers than trying to overhaul and fund social security. Most young people I talk with NOW, state they don’t think Social Security will be available when they retire.

    Just as we provide student loans to help provide a college education, once the student graduates we should consider providing employment loans that would start the employee ownership package rolling. The employee would pay for the start up plan through a regulated payroll deduction. When the startup package is paid for, it would be mandatory that the deductions continue and the employees startup/retirement package would continue to grow untill retirement. If the employee’s is terminated prior to retirement, the government could establish policy for an escrow holding account pending re-establishing or tranferring the fund with a new employer. Including cases of no employment available or disability.

    Provisions could also be made in the G I Bill program earmarking a part of the package to provide the funds for the purchase of the employee's start up stock package for those leaving the military in search of employment.

    Think about the effect this would have on startup businesses, where each employee hired is bringing not just his or her skills, but also bringing investment capital.

    Think how customers would be treated by employee owners, and the respect customers would have for employees when they know this person actually does own the company.

    Why would a corporation want outside investors electing CEO’s and board members? I feel all corporations should have at least 51% employee ownership.

    2, The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." This now seems to apply to Corporations more so than employees. The bigger the Corporation the harder they fall. One way to reduce the devastating effects of a giant corporate failure would be to break it down into smaller component production ficilities. In the automotive field, this would be the perfect time. Rethinking the industry is ongoing due to the high cost of energy. More fuel efficent vehicles, alternative power source and hybreds are the future. Retooling will be required whether the production facilities are the same central mega factories or smaller compact units spread out across the country. Why not construct and locate mini assembly and fabrication units close to the local Dealerships. Engine production could be spread out all across the country in units such as , Piston plants, crankshaft plants, every part a mini production facility. I believe the reduction in labor cost alone could cover the cost of constructing the mini ficillities. The technology is available to monitor and supervise each facility remotely from a central location.If the treasury is going to bailout these corporations anyway. I say attach the funds to employee loans and let the employee owners bring in investment capital to help put it all together. This way we are putting people to work, not just paying out to professional investors.

    3. Vegas & Wallstreet.

    Wall Street is the BIG APPLE CASINO. Vegas has been ahead of Wall Street gamblers (Traders) for along time. For instance, if you’re a card counter ( a system that gives the player an advantage over the house ) playing Black Jack in a Vegas casino, even though card counting is legal (like selling short or certain other stock and option trading is legal), when the pitt boss catches on to you, the casino has the right to ask you to leave and even ban you from coming back. Why can’t Wall Street take the same position with their trading (gambling) When it is determined that any spicific type of trading action, legal or illegal is detrimental to the overall health of the stock market, it could and should be stoped.

    4. Fiduciary responsibility & Golden parachutes,

    It’s a well known fact that institutional and private fund investors, by virtue of the scale of their collective investments, have enormous influence over financial markets and the global economy as a whole. In 1999 United States public pension funds alone had assets representing 46 percent of the gross domestic product and 33 percent of the New York Stock Exchange’s capitalization. Additional holdings by religious, educational and public institutions, unions and foundations further increase these numbers. As a result, these institutions’ financial decisions have a huge impact on society. The collective power of these institutions could be limited to 10 to 30% holding in any one corporation thus reducing their power to control the election of CEOs and board members along with their outragous contracts that include multi-million dollar bonuses and golden parachutes.This action would tend to secure the short and long term interests of employee owners beneficiaries, and other shareholders and stakeholders alike.

    The realities of the 21st century require fiduciaries to be concerned with the impact of financial, social and environmental factors on the performance of their company to fulfill their legal obligations and maximize shareholder value. In addition, as employee owners, fiduciaries have the duty and the opportunity to promote good corporate governance to protect the assets under their care, and because the corporation is at least 51% employee owned the focus of the CEO and board is not just the bottom line,

    The employee owner concept asserts that the integration of prudent financial management practices with principles of environmental stewardship, concern for community, labor and human rights, and corporate accountability to employee shareholders and stakeholders – which in the present are not considered relevant by the financial decision-making process of the botton lined focused professional investers. These outside investors with no other relationship to the company or employee, other than ownership of its stock, tends to constitute in-fact a single bottom line concept. In order to guarantee long term sustainability, to minimize long and short term financial risk, the definition of fiduciary responsibility has to evolve to a more comprehensive view of all aspects concerning the true value of a corporation. NOT JUST THE BOTTOM LINE.

    Thank you for your time.

    Any comments may be sent to

    Wylie Axford



Huck-a-Book Carousel

Please Support These Sponsors of 'OK for Huckabee'.

For info about being a sponsor on 'OK for Huckabee', send e-mail to OKforHuckabee (at) yahoo (dot) com