Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Obama and the Cloward-Piven Strategy (continued)

Tags:
  • Politics
  • Power
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
August 9, 2012 3:44:22 PM

Well...for once I thought we were actually getting somewhere and having an open and truthful discussion with a real time, real life example of Obama usurping the enumerated powers of the President as defined by the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution.

But, the Mods (Renynod) saw fit to lock the thread due to some unfortunate comments.

For wanamingo: Bottom line is, the President does NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE OR CREATE LAWS. The power to change or create laws resides solely within the purview of the Congress. Whether you choose to accept it or not, Obama effectively change the Welfare Law of 1996 by informing states that they could apply to the Secretary of HHS for a waiver of the work requirements established in the 1996 law. President Obama has moved forward with fundamental changes to TANF without consulting Congress. Congress explicitly protected the law against this sort of administrative overstep, but the Obama Administration did it anyway.

In plain language, Obama issuing the directive to HHS was illegal and not within the purview and powers of the President.

This is a prime example of Obama's disdain for the Constitution and complete disregard for the rule of law. This is hypocritical coming from a man who taught about the Constitution at the University of Chicago.

Obama is slowly and systematically implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy as a means to fundamentally transform American into a Social Democracy.

For oldmangamer_73: You're 100% correct is saying that the liberals on this forum just don't get it. It also shows their complete ignorance of the Constitution and the principles of the American Republic.

More about : obama cloward piven strategy continued

August 9, 2012 3:52:39 PM

Just so we are all on the same page here.

I get it, I just dont agree with you.

So did you pull up that executive order yet?
August 9, 2012 4:45:35 PM

wanamingo said:
Just so we are all on the same page here.

I get it, I just dont agree with you.

So did you pull up that executive order yet?


The truth does not require you to agree with it.

It was a directive to HHS which is a cabinet position in the executive branch. Who runs the executive branch mingo? No written executive order is needed. Obama just calls up the head of HHS and says "do it". That's all it takes.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 9, 2012 6:17:05 PM

Im sorry to inform you but its not illegal. Bush did the same thing in 2005 when he redefined what TANF meant. Im sure you were both equally distraught then. Did either of you even bother to read the link I provided TO THE ACTUAL MEMO THAT HHS RELEASED?!?! Probably not.......



I dont see any problem with states being allowed to choose a system that has to exceed current TANF regulations. If anything the law is stronger now. Kinda hypocritical of you two small gov conservatives poo pooing the pres when he gives more power to the states, the man can do no right. Besides your ire should really be directed at the head of the HHS but that would require actually looking something up (Or looking at news site you dont normally go to GASP!)

But like always we will never be able to discuss policy here, heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with you.




You two are becoming more embarrassing...... For those outside of the USA not everyone is as conservative as some of the commentators you see here.
August 9, 2012 6:20:40 PM

wanamingo said:
I get it, I just dont agree with you.
Do you "get it"? Really? I would like to think you do...but something tells me that this has gone too far for you to admit that Obama has a total disregard for the Constitution and contempt towards principles of our republic.

Oldmangamer_73 said:
The truth does not require you to agree with it.
oldmangamer_73 is 100% correct. You don't have to agree with it. But as my Grandfather said to me, "To deny the truth is to choose to be ignorant, and choosing to be ignorant is the same thing as living your life as a lie."



It's sad really, how folks can be presented with absolute proof of Obama's disdain for the rule of law and blatant disregard for the Constitution, deny that truth, and then make apologetic excuses attempting to justify their support of Obama.

The term "useful idiot" really does fit the description.
August 9, 2012 6:33:13 PM

chunkymonster said:
Do you "get it"? Really? I would like to think you do...but something tells me that this has gone too far for you to admit that Obama has a total disregard for the Constitution and contempt towards principles of our republic.


Ill believe the truth when I see it.


chunkymonster said:

oldmangamer_73 is 100% correct. You don't have to agree with it. But as my Grandfather said to me, "To deny the truth is to choose to be ignorant, and choosing to be ignorant is the same thing as living your life as a lie."



It's sad really, how folks can be presented with absolute proof of Obama's disdain for the rule of law and blatant disregard for the Constitution, deny that truth, and then make apologetic excuses attempting to justify their support of Obama.

The term "useful idiot" really does fit the description.



Be careful Ive heard the sky will fall any day now.......
August 9, 2012 6:45:07 PM

wanamingo said:
Im sorry to inform you but its not illegal.
HOLY CRAP! You are proving yourself to be a complete Obama apologist and truth denier.

Whether you agree with it or not, Obama issuing the directive to HHS, which effectively changed the welfare law of 1996, was illegal. If you choose to continue to believe otherwise, you are beyond help.

wanamingo said:
Bush did the same thing in 2005 when he redefined what TANF meant. Im sure you were both equally distraught then. Did either of you even bother to read the link I provided TO THE ACTUAL MEMO THAT HHS RELEASED?!?! Probably not.......
Please provide a link to the specific memo or article that clearly states Bush redefined TANF without congressional approval. The only thing I have been able to find within the presidential or congressional record is Bush re-authorizing TANF with rule changes. President Bush re-authorizing TANF is NOT the same a the President Obama issuing a directive.

wanamingo said:
You two are becoming more embarrassing...... For those outside of the USA not everyone is as conservative as some of the commentators you see here.
Sorry mingo, but it is your fundamental illiteracy of the Constitution, the enumerated powers of the President, and principles of our republic that is embarrassing.
August 9, 2012 7:21:34 PM

Oh well, why didn't you say so in the first place?! If Bush did it it mush be ok then. :sarcastic: 
August 9, 2012 7:52:18 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/...

Quote:
The administration has responded by noting that a slew of Republican governors, among them then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, requested very similar waivers in 2005. But Chen’s note, and a new ad making the same criticism, suggests the Romney camp wants to make this a bigger issue going forward.

Ron Haskins, one of the reform’s main authors who Chen cites in his e-mail, agrees with the Romney camp on two counts. One, he insists, the reform has been overwhelmingly successful. Never-married mothers, the likeliest demographic group to be on welfare, are still working at rates higher than prior to the reforms, despite the current economic downturn. “There’s been some real impact, call it cultural change if you want to,” Haskins says. “There’s a lot more work going on.” He also believes the Obama administration should have pursued its waivers with the cooperation of Republicans. “It might not be illegal,” he concedes. “But [HHS] didn’t even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that.”

In sum, Haskins says, “The Republican alarm on welfare reform might be a little exaggerated.” Coming from one of the architects of the reform, that should cast some doubt on Romney’s attacks.


I thought this was a pretty balanced view from both sides (Both sides get negative points).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/s...

And here is a nice example of how the president did exactly what state gov asked him to do.....
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/54505083-218/utah-hh...
August 9, 2012 11:32:07 PM

Just don't get out your pitchforks and blazing torches tonight and start burning anyone on a cross ... try to keep things civil.

Otherwise I'll close the thread ... simple.
August 10, 2012 1:13:12 PM

wanamingo said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/...
Quote:
The administration has responded by noting that a slew of Republican governors, among them then-Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, requested very similar waivers in 2005. But Chen’s note, and a new ad making the same criticism, suggests the Romney camp wants to make this a bigger issue going forward.

Ron Haskins, one of the reform’s main authors who Chen cites in his e-mail, agrees with the Romney camp on two counts. One, he insists, the reform has been overwhelmingly successful. Never-married mothers, the likeliest demographic group to be on welfare, are still working at rates higher than prior to the reforms, despite the current economic downturn. “There’s been some real impact, call it cultural change if you want to,” Haskins says. “There’s a lot more work going on.” He also believes the Obama administration should have pursued its waivers with the cooperation of Republicans. “It might not be illegal,” he concedes. “But [HHS] didn’t even consult with the Republicans. They knew the spirit of the law, and they violated that.”

In sum, Haskins says, “The Republican alarm on welfare reform might be a little exaggerated.” Coming from one of the architects of the reform, that should cast some doubt on Romney’s attacks.
While I respect what Ron Haskins has to say about this issue, just because he says, "It might not be illegal" does not absolve Obama from the legality of his directive to the HHS. If anything, Ron Haskins using the verbiage "it might not be" inherently implies that Obama issuing the directive is illegal.

wanamingo said:
I thought this was a pretty balanced view from both sides (Both sides get negative points).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/s...

And here is a nice example of how the president did exactly what state gov asked him to do.....
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/54505083-218/utah-hh...
The WashPo Blog focuses more on the he-said-she-said aspect of Obama directive so it can award Pinocchio Points and gave little focus on the actual legality of the issue.

The article from the Salt Lake City Tribune reads like an "end justifies the means" apologetic piece as it's basically saying that Obama issued the directive to HHS because some governors were asking for it.

But what's interesting and consistent about both links is they both say Obama bypassed Congress to issue the directive to HHS and did not follow the regular re-authorization procedure to make rule changes; which, is just a diplomatic and politically correct way of saying that Obama over stepped his power as President and usurped the power of Congress to change the law. In other words, Obama issuing the directive to HHS was illegal.

I continue to contend that Obama has a disdain for the rule of law and a blatant disregard for the Constitution, and that Obama is systematically implementing the Cloward-Piven strategy as a tool to fundamentally transform America into a Social Democracy.
August 10, 2012 1:51:34 PM

wanamingo said:
Ill believe the truth when I see it.
What's really ironic about this statement is that you presented your self with the truth and proof of Obama issuing the directive to HHS being illegal back in the original thread, the one that Reynod closed.

Here it is again, you know the one that was too legalese for you to understand, in case you forgot...

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/...
!