Hillary Clinton and the Culture of Poverty

By
Lisette Muntslag
In the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. Judge Janice Rogers-Brown

The mainstream media hails her as the champion of, women, the poor and
minorities, and every time I hear this line, I ask myself who are the women, the
poor and minorities that these people are talking about?
When I decided to research this single mothers on welfare phenomenon in the
United States two years ago I shelved the project because my thesis was turning
into book. But I am at again because this matter deserves to see the light of day.
In this article Hillary: I Will Change Our Country Steven M. Warshawsky really
breaks it down. In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political
benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation's 42nd president, Hillary Clinton
delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas. In her speech,
Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from
the start:
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great
challenges facing all of us in the West."
"Remolding society." This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks
to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to
eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary's ideology is
an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of
unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses. Significantly,
the term "remolding" -- unlike such terms as "reform" or "renew" -- reflects a
sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists: family structure (too
patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate
against women and minorities), and so on. Although Hillary claims to speak on
behalf of all women, her brand of feminism is primarily designed for middle class
and professional women who want to pursue "careers" without the hassles of
children.
1

When she talked about remolding society Hillary Clinton did not limit herself to
the United States, but talked about all of us in the West.a battle cry repeated by
her fellow travelers.
The open letter to Hillary Clinton: Lets Talk About Poverty by Fred Block and
Frances Fox-Piven answered some of my questions about the social welfare system
and economic exploitation of (black) women with children in New York. Frances
Fox Piven the female part of the 1960s activist duo Cloward-Piven who developed
the political strategy to overload the U.S. welfare system to the point of a crisis
that it bankrupts the nation, leaving the country with no choice but to adopt a
Socialist/Communist agenda. If you never thought it could not happen, it already
did and it came without the big a bang: "Socialism concentrated all the wealth in
the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery
in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created
the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most
vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."
The authors open with.We dont know whether you will run for president in
2016, but whatever you decide, we think that you should step forward now to
launch a national debate about poverty and welfare. You are uniquely positioned to
exercise leadership in discussing how public policy fails to respond to the needs of
the poor. Specifically, we are asking for you to open a conversation about the
shortcomings of the 1996 welfare legislation that was passed when you and Bill
Clinton were in the White House. Such a conversation is urgent regardless of who
might run for president in 2016.
Canonized as the standard bearer of feminism in the West Hillary Clinton is the
perfect person to use the might of the government to further the interest of her
comrades. I am sure everybody remembers the welfare reforms that Bill Clinton
was forced to make under pressure from Republicans, to get some women,
dubbed welfare queens off the government plantation. Bill Clinton campaigned
for the presidency in 1992 with the promise to end welfare as we know it. He was
responding to decades of criticism of a program called Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC ), which dated back to the 1930s. The program provided
2

a federal entitlement to assistance to families, mostly female-headed, who were

living in poverty.
In this manifestly partisan letter, Republicans are portrayed as the heartless brutes
who criticized this program because of, you guessed it.Nearly half of welfare
recipients were non-white, so the attack on welfare fit nicely into the larger
Republican effort to discredit the Democratic Party by associating it with blacks and
liberalism. At the same time, what justification there had been for the welfare
entitlement depended on the idea that it was appropriate for women who were
mothers of young children to stay at home. The rise of second-wave feminism
celebrating the liberation of women from traditional household roles in favor of
their entrance into the marketplace discredited that idea.
They continues with this appeal.Hillary, the basic rhetoric that the Republicans
used to push through the 1996 welfare legislation was the claim that giving poor
people assistance actually hurts them by discouraging self-reliance and selfdiscipline. In their worldview the kindest thing one can do is to deny assistance
because it forces people to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
With this statement the authors condescendingly confirm their bias by implying
that the supposed poor (code word for non-white) people are incapable, of
making their own decisions and think for themselves, the government needs to
step in and become their God and Savior.
Now here is the liberal progressive (socialist) crux.In short, the future of all of
our public sector programs requires directly refuting the Republican claims that
government assistance hurts recipients. You once told us, It takes a village to raise
a child. It follows logically that all of us need assistance from time to time and that
there is nothing shameful about that kind of dependence. For this reason, we
urgently need to rebuild the social safety net so that we are assisting more of those
stuck in poverty while also assuring that the automatic stabilizers will protect us all
from deeper economic downturns.
According to the authors there is nothing shameful about that kind of
dependence. Since they know much better what is good for others, they care not
about the cruel and inhumane treatment that people are subjected to because of
this kind of this state sanctioned dependency.
3

Their major concern is the future of our public sector programs.they even
rehashed Hillary Clintons famous phrase it takes a village to raise a child to get
their point across. I am not sure if people ever asked the question what village
Hillary Clinton had in mind when she coined the phrase, but all evidence points to
what Lionel Tiger called the bureaugamy: A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a
bureaucrat. I call it the radical feminist trinity. A long established reality in
Western countries, which perpetuates the poverty and economic dependency of
some women. A 2014 report The War On Poverty After 50 Years gives us the
following, "When Johnson launched the War on Poverty, 7 percent of American
children were born outside of marriage. Today, the number is over 40 percent. As
the welfare state expanded, marriage stagnated and single parenthood soared."
Talking about poverty is big business, and especially the poverty of African
Americans.this article reports that 40% of African American children in the
United States live in poverty. The poverty rate for African-American children can
be explained, in part, by the employment status and level of income of their
parents, according to Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of Hispanic research at the
Pew Research Center. Blacks are more likely to be unemployed and earn less than
people of other races.
In their letter the authors also note that:
Other nations, like Brazil and Mexico, for example, use conditional cash transfers
to poor householdsconditional that is on children going to school and seeing
doctors.
Why are so many from Mexico crossing the U.S. border illegally if the government
is taking care of the poor? It is a fact that if you are a Hispanic women, you dont
even have to speak the language to qualify for welfare benefits in New York. I lived
in a building where I struggled to pay my rent, while the government paid the rent
for an illegal alien to the tune of $1300 a month. She kept having babies without a
husband. My landlord, at some point asked me what was going on because he
could not comprehend this perversion either. I was mandated and harassed to pay
taxes, while government employees did everything to criminalize and marginalize
me.
The letter continues with Many European countries provide subsidies to singleparent households and subsidize housing costs for lower-income families.
4

Yes many of the massive social welfare states that systematically exclude women
with children from the market place as demanded by the feminist cadre make sure
that these women become permanent slaves of the welfare state. Its a win for the
collectivist, incompetent cruel, inhumane and dictatorial minds to keep out their
competition. Who said that capitalism created the poverty of people?
Last but not least from the open letter to Hillary Clinton.There is also a growing
debate internationally about a universal basic income that would pull most people
out of extreme poverty. Which of these tools would work best in this country is a
debate that we need to start right now so that legislative action can happen in the
near future. The New Testament says that we will be judged by how we treat the
least among us. Treating people like alligators does not seem like the prescribed
path to eternal salvation. Here we see the Netherlands that I ran away from
taking the lead to come up with another social experiment to perpetuate the
economic dependency of people, and of course if it benefits their agenda socialist
use the bible to soothe their predatory conscience.
It is clear that the war on poverty in the United States created more poor people
instead of less, especially among single women with children. Extremist call for the
expansion of government programs but you never hear anyone ask the crucial
question why these (black) women and their children remain stuck in poverty
despite the many billions of tax-payers money spend on social programs.
Well I can tell you without a reasonable doubt why nobody dares to ask the
question.the massive welfare system today is not aimed at eradicating poverty. It
is intended to perpetuate the culture of dependency and poverty of some people.
The future of the public sector is not about helping the poor, it is all about helping
these Socialist/Communist perpetuate an under-class and maintain their privileged
position. If you dont have an under-class you simply create one.
It may seem altruistic but using race and (black) single mothers as pawn to rescue
the public sector social programs is the institutionalized oppression and economic
exploitation of some women, which benefits the feminist cabal and Hillary Clinton
is the champion.!