Frances Fox-Piven now has called for students to default on their student loans. As the Occupy movement continued on, I found that a number of Occupiers had stated that had been living off money from their student loans to stand around, often commit crimes, (Without attending class or working) and demand yet more money. I knew in my heart that many of them had no intention of paying back their loans in the first place. It was just a matter of time before someone publicly declared that a widespread defaulting would be the preferred tool to bring on an economic collapse (The main goal of the Cloward-Piven strategy) instead of simply being end goal of students who want free college. Rather than postponing payment of their student loans until the Occupiers got their way and had their debts cancelled, an outright default would be much more effective in hastening the failure of our economy. This has been long-desired by Piven (Piven's story and that of the Cloward-Piven strategy is below*). In short, she has long been an outspoken advocate of a bottom-up created economic collapse that would allow for the institution of a Socialist-type society in which very individual, by virtue of residing in the US and continuing to breathe, is entitled to a "guaranteed minimum income".
*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/cloward-piven-founder-gleefully.html
http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/03/piven-democrats-socialists-and.html
Piven also called for the accelerating and expansion of squatting in foreclosed homes and added that Universities too should be targets. She continued that Occupy should have plans in place to provide security for squatters to prevent removals and that they should seeks the means of reestablishing water, electric, and heating service to the occupied structures. I did not draw any inference from Ms. Piven's statements that would tell us just how she planned for the squatters to pay for the restoration and continued supply of the utilities. Remember, the Socialist mindset is that you pay, not the revolutionaries.
Piven has been one of the few Old-Guard Marxists that has been able to garner a position of influence with the Occupy Movement.
This is getting uglier every time that I see something new. The US is facing a massive effort from a substantial amount of its own citizens to cause economic and social collapse. Leftists thrive off chaotic situations, especially those that are their creations. They desire such events as these provide fertile ground for the scrapping of annoying obstacles such as National Constitutions and the erecting of Socialist States in their stead.
We are past the point where (No matter how much effort is expended in proving that free markets, not Marxist societies, create economic growth) we can persuade appreciable amounts of people, especially the youth, that Socialism does not work. We stood idly by for too long as one High School graduating class after another was sent to the Reeducation Camps. The brainwashing was so severe, thorough, and ongoing, that we are now faced with a body politic in which 36% (a percentage which is growing) of our voters support or sympathize with Socialist thought.
Our Founding Fathers foresaw a lot of potential threats and provided numerous safeguards in our Constitution to keep them in check. Aside from the obvious "...secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity", and all that this implies (Bottom**), the wholesale attack on property rights as advocated by Marxists was not one of them. Almost every potential threat to our nation can be addressed by the application of Constitutional Law. The very notion that governments are themselves created to protect property (and the use and profit of it) was so basic to our Founders that they could not even conceive a future in which the same would be demonized in the manner that it is today.
I submit, that since our Constitution was based of the very basic principles of the respect for and complete protection of Private property as promulgated by John Locke** (Whose thought was a powerful influence in the making of our nation), we need to stand back and reconsider the very right of Leftists to exist as political bodies or function as members of the body politic in the first place.
I hold that the statement "...secure the blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity" does indeed provide a governing principle that would serve as legal justification to prohibit Leftist-inspired political actions. Even without a clear-cut legislative intent of the Founders or legal precedent, the US would have to establish a policy to deal with a threat not specifically treated in the Constitution. Nothing could be closer to the threat from an outside source than that of Leftists who are currently free to operate within the system, call for measures that are purposely designed to bring about economic collapse and force taxpayers to pick up the tab, create new Leftists by steady and relentless indoctrination, vote for candidates that advance Leftist notions, and seek to abolish private property and the profits derived from such.
Islamic terrorism and Sharia? - Small potatoes compared to the threats we face from the Left.
Since the Constitution does not address Marxism, nor could it since no such thought existed at the time (It began in the early to mid-19th century), I submit that, at the very least, US States should legally (By Statute) define Leftist political action as a direct threat to our nation and as contrary to the very principles one which this nation is based. I challenge anyone to argue that a movement that seeks to overturn basic rights such as that of Private property and the freedom from oppressive taxation (We are fast approaching that turning point) can be considered to be anything other than a threat akin to that of a foreign invasion. As standard Oaths of Office require that individuals swear or affirm to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (And often of his or her own State) against all enemies, foreign and domestic, all public officials have the obligation to defend us and our nation from and Marxism, whether it be of the blatant or piecemeal type.
Marxists must firstly be removed from their public offices, prohibited from possessing voting rights, and allowed to depart the US for whatever locale will take them. The principles on which our Constitution is based do not allow for the political actions of those who stand against Property. Acts of this sort are Treasonous.
There is no Liberty without the right to Private Property:
**
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/
"Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Men uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”
Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.
He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”
Locke had enormous foresight to see beyond the struggles of his own day, which were directed against monarchy: “’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”
Then Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislativeshall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.' "
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete