Hillary and the Politics of Children

[ZOBOLI]

Hillary and the Politics of Children
by Stephen Baskerville (more by this author)
Posted 01/24/2007 ET
from:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...t=yes&id=19096


Hillary Clinton chose to kick off her presidential campaign by invoking images of -- what else? -- children. Her healthcare policy would target "millions of children whose families today cannot afford care." Not the families of the children. Hillary prefers to work directly with the children themselves rather than their parents.

"We are talking about health care for children in need, which is about as safe an issue as there is," said Ken Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College.

Safe for a candidate perhaps, but safe for the children and our nation it is not. In casting her questionable health care ideas as a measure “for the children,” Hillary is returning us to the darkest days of her husband’s administration, when a broad range of intrusive government measures were cynically couched as concern for children.

This is more than just another politician kissing babies. It represents one of the most destructive (and successful) strategies of the feminist Left in recent years: the exploitation of children as political weapons.

Hillary is not alone. "Democrats across the board are putting children at the center of their imagery and message," according to the Washington Post. "Earlier this month, Rep. Nancy Pelosi made a vivid impression by assuming the House speakership surrounded by a squadron of young grandchildren. Sen. Barbara Boxer recently questioned whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not having family of her own, could understand the stakes in Iraq." And, of course, a Democratic California assemblywoman wants to criminalize spanking.

The trend may be traced to Hillary’s mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, who admitted she founded the Children’s Defense Fund in the early 1970s upon realizing that the country was weary of the broader New Left agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” Edelman’s achievement was “to put children squarely in the front of almost every domestic policy debate,” according to the late Barbara Olson. In her book on the former First Lady, Olson writes, “For Hillary, children are the levers by which one forces social change.”

Largely through Hillary, this motif dominated Bill Clinton’s presidency. “Children,” wrote liberal columnist Richard Cohen, “have been an obsession for this administration.” His point is borne out by the words of its officials. “Government has got to ensure that parents are old enough, wise enough, and able to care for their children,” Attorney General Janet Reno insisted. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala was especially zealous for government child-rearing, envisioning a future kindergartener who “will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States.”

One does not have to be a Clinton-basher to see this eerily close to Aldous Huxley’s prophecy of a totalitarian dystopia. Praising Hillary's book, "It Takes a Village," for its message that "each of us -- society as a whole -- bears responsibility for all children, even other people's children," professors Stewart Friedman and Jeffrey Greenhaus insist that we "must be prepared to make the most of the brave new world lying in the future."

"Success in the brave new world." they add, "requires skills found more among women than men."

This is far from harmless, either for public policy or for children themselves. Political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain writes that “The replacements for parents and families would not be a happy, consensual world of children coequal with adults but one in which children became clients of institutionally powerful social bureaucrats and engineers of all sorts for whom they would serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions.”

This is precisely what is suggested in Hillary’s aphorism: “There is no such thing as other people’s children.” Hillary rejects the notion that “families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children” and believes instead in “the status of children as political beings.”

Feminist-influenced legal practitioners now openly advocate that traditional parental authority be replaced by bureaucrats: “For those who would like to have the State use its power and resources to improve the lives of children, parental rights constitute the greatest legal obstacle to government intervention to protect children from harmful parenting practices and to state efforts to assume greater authority over the care and education of children.”

These words are published in the California Law Review, a mainstream journal that asks “why parents should have any child-rearing rights at all.”

“Parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate,” declared attorney James Dwyer. “No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.”

A popular joke holds that within the family mom makes the minor decisions, such as how to raise the children, while dad concerns himself with important questions, like how to achieve world peace. This joke is now grimly writ large in public policy. Conservatives who allow their attention to be monopolized by foreign policy and government finance and leave family policy to liberals from the “Mommy Party” will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.”

Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

[KeyboardWarrior]

straight out insanity. I sure hope you folks don't elect her style of politics, things are already crazy, don't need to legitimize it ;)

[charlesa6]

Well, she is still better than incumbent president.

[beeboah]

Have to disagree Charles. It is hard enough being a "man" nowadays. Don't want my kids snatched away either. I'd hate to have my pay go down, and my "child" support go up, simply because of my gender.

When all that money may very well be going to support a drug habit with no accountability whatsoever.

When someone willfully chooses to be both "parents", they should act that way and support their child financially 100%.

You are so "independent" as a politically correct when you willfully chose to be a "stay at home mom" ??

Then show the world just how independent you really are. Support your kids at the rate of 100%. After all it was "gimme gimme gimme" when it came time to custody.

A bunch of liberal songs about how independent you are only cuts it for the weak.

Most of the time, there is this permanently painted picture in the minds of many whereas it is men who can't keep it in their pockets, and decide to cheat on their partner.

This is far from the truth, believe me. There are PLENTY of women out there who DELIBERATELY deceive men into believing that they are their "soulmate". Once they become pregnant, it is "see you later Charlie.'

Many women already know that it is economically advantageous to get that divorce by claiming that their man cheated or was a woman beater etc.

That situation is already BAD now. I cannot imagine how much worse things would get under Hillary.

Women this, women that. We are all gods creatures, so I WILL NEVER EVER believe that a woman is superior to me in any way, or that I am inferior to a woman in any way.

At least this president didn't fund VAWA.

I have a great amount of respect for you Charles. This is just my opinion, and not a stab at you. Just very concerned about a liberal getting power. I'd take the "right" any day.

[charlesa6]

Correct me if I’m wrong, the bottom line we are not ready for woman president period. I’m a conservative too, however whoever get the job done to my satisfaction is my buddy and right wings are not doing that right now.

[beeboah]

Give me Condoleezza Rice over Hillary and "I" would be happy. Not a sexist thing for me. To me it's more of an equality thing. Men are not equal to women anymore. The presidency is just a symbol of equality or superiority (if you see it that way) for men. The average "Joe" is now being held inferior to the average "Jane". I'd rather pay a junkie for the next 12 years than suck up to a woman, simply for the fact that she is a female.

I hate feminism just as much as feminists hate us.

Again Charles, with much respect to you. Thank you for allowing me to exhibit Freedom of Speech on your domain.

[ZOBOLI]

TOTALITARIAN CONTROL FREAKS have infiltrated all prank ranks. CAPITAL HILL is now a DUNG HILL of everything unclean. The DUNG has hit the fans rolling downstream:


Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35

January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals

EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, January 10, 1963



Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:

[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]

CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for so******m and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting *****graphy and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any so******t movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

[beeboah]

Right on, I am speechless.

[cigs645]

Originally Posted by ZOBOLI

Hillary and the Politics of Children
by Stephen Baskerville (more by this author)
Posted 01/24/2007 ET
from:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...t=yes&id=19096


Hillary Clinton chose to kick off her presidential campaign by invoking images of -- what else? -- children. Her healthcare policy would target "millions of children whose families today cannot afford care." Not the families of the children. Hillary prefers to work directly with the children themselves rather than their parents.

"We are talking about health care for children in need, which is about as safe an issue as there is," said Ken Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College.

Safe for a candidate perhaps, but safe for the children and our nation it is not. In casting her questionable health care ideas as a measure “for the children,” Hillary is returning us to the darkest days of her husband’s administration, when a broad range of intrusive government measures were cynically couched as concern for children.

This is more than just another politician kissing babies. It represents one of the most destructive (and successful) strategies of the feminist Left in recent years: the exploitation of children as political weapons.

Hillary is not alone. "Democrats across the board are putting children at the center of their imagery and message," according to the Washington Post. "Earlier this month, Rep. Nancy Pelosi made a vivid impression by assuming the House speakership surrounded by a squadron of young grandchildren. Sen. Barbara Boxer recently questioned whether Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, not having family of her own, could understand the stakes in Iraq." And, of course, a Democratic California assemblywoman wants to criminalize spanking.

The trend may be traced to Hillary’s mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, who admitted she founded the Children’s Defense Fund in the early 1970s upon realizing that the country was weary of the broader New Left agenda: “I got the idea that children might be a very effective way to broaden the base for change.” Edelman’s achievement was “to put children squarely in the front of almost every domestic policy debate,” according to the late Barbara Olson. In her book on the former First Lady, Olson writes, “For Hillary, children are the levers by which one forces social change.”

Largely through Hillary, this motif dominated Bill Clinton’s presidency. “Children,” wrote liberal columnist Richard Cohen, “have been an obsession for this administration.” His point is borne out by the words of its officials. “Government has got to ensure that parents are old enough, wise enough, and able to care for their children,” Attorney General Janet Reno insisted. Then-Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala was especially zealous for government child-rearing, envisioning a future kindergartener who “will play gender-neutral games in government day care and think of herself as part of the world, not just her town or the United States.”

One does not have to be a Clinton-basher to see this eerily close to Aldous Huxley’s prophecy of a totalitarian dystopia. Praising Hillary's book, "It Takes a Village," for its message that "each of us -- society as a whole -- bears responsibility for all children, even other people's children," professors Stewart Friedman and Jeffrey Greenhaus insist that we "must be prepared to make the most of the brave new world lying in the future."

"Success in the brave new world." they add, "requires skills found more among women than men."

This is far from harmless, either for public policy or for children themselves. Political scientist Jean Bethke Elshtain writes that “The replacements for parents and families would not be a happy, consensual world of children coequal with adults but one in which children became clients of institutionally powerful social bureaucrats and engineers of all sorts for whom they would serve as so much grist for the mill of extra-familial schemes and ambitions.”

This is precisely what is suggested in Hillary’s aphorism: “There is no such thing as other people’s children.” Hillary rejects the notion that “families are private, nonpolitical units whose interests subsume those of children” and believes instead in “the status of children as political beings.”

Feminist-influenced legal practitioners now openly advocate that traditional parental authority be replaced by bureaucrats: “For those who would like to have the State use its power and resources to improve the lives of children, parental rights constitute the greatest legal obstacle to government intervention to protect children from harmful parenting practices and to state efforts to assume greater authority over the care and education of children.”

These words are published in the California Law Review, a mainstream journal that asks “why parents should have any child-rearing rights at all.”

“Parental child-rearing rights are illegitimate,” declared attorney James Dwyer. “No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.”

A popular joke holds that within the family mom makes the minor decisions, such as how to raise the children, while dad concerns himself with important questions, like how to achieve world peace. This joke is now grimly writ large in public policy. Conservatives who allow their attention to be monopolized by foreign policy and government finance and leave family policy to liberals from the “Mommy Party” will discover only once it is too late the power of “the hand that rocks the cradle.”

Dr. Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

After leading the charge against Clinton's moral lapses for many years Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the house, came out of the closet admitting, while himself married at the time, to a non professional relationship with one of his aides, who later became wife no. 3 (I think it's a woman). A big time Christian preacher said he heard Newts confession and forgave the speaker. The Rev Jerry Falwell has invited Newt to speak to his students. However most Christian leaders are not forgiving Rudy Guliani, the thrice married, cross dressing, pro gay rights former mayor who leads all Republican candidates with a whopping 59%. If Newt joins the race that will make 8 wives between Newt, McCain and Guliani. Mitch Romney, another republican candidate for Prez is a pro-gay rights Mormon. He can have as many wives as he likes, all at the same time. GW's former praying buddy, the Rev Ted Haggard had no comment.
Ol Ted was cured of his gay issues inside 2 weeks

Ann Coulter well known conservative values commentator called John Edwards a faggot. She along with Newt and others did a photo opp with a gay ***** star, Rod Sanchez. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." - Ann Coulter, following 9/11 terrorist attacks . Did the gay porn star lead the attack? A gay pride parade, sanctioned by the Israeli Attorney General and Supreme court was held in Jerusalem August 11, 2006. The Republican party also sponsored a dozen or so marriage amendments. confusing? stay tuned. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the attention span of the average American media viewer/listener.

[Freedomless]

If you have eyes, let them see. If you have ears, let them hear.

Why would anyone want Hilary Clinton in the White House? Hilary is married to a convicted felon. Bill Clinton was impeached and convicted of perjury.

This attorney couple is a dysfunctional family. The men and women of the states do not need a dysfunctional family back in the White House.

The basis of both the Reps and Demos are the same, funded by the elite and controlled by the banking families of the world. Their only interest is in the NWO, not the welfare of the men of women of the world.

The senators sit by and do not voice the truth when an unlawful event takes place. Does that not make them as guilty as the Pres, the Vice Pres, the Sec of State and so on and so forth?



The states should not operate on the love of money (EVIL) but should operate - OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.


This is my opinion and not any legal advise.