Posted on 12/29/2003 9:46:31 AM PST by local3
How can she say this and expect anyone with half a brain to believe it?
G-D help us.
In the early 70’s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon panel of eleven ‘experts’ assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Council’s book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who seeks to understand Hillary Rodham’s plan for the future of American families.
The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of the “universal entitlement state” was an inevitability, and the best thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival. Just as families in an earlier era turned their children’s education over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should government assume responsibilities for many other areas of children’s lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the nuclear family need not be worrisome, because “schools, doctors, and counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.”
More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider outmoded. The chapter entitled, “Protection of Children Rights,” the section on which Hillary worked, observes that “it has become necessary for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to have.” The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental notification, and preventing schools from “unilaterally” suspending or expelling disruptive students.
But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for developing a new class of “public advocates” who will speak for children’s interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment to race relations: “In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both children and parents need canny advocates."
The report goes on to suggest that “child ombudsmen” be placed in public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable individual children to hire “decently paid” private attorneys to represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages their businesses might cause to TODAY’S children.
This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it really time for the government to take even more control and responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if Hillary jumps in.
In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the Children’s Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she advocated liberating our “child citizens” from the “empire of the father.” This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre. (“There is no good father, that’s the rule,’ Sartre said. “Don’t lay the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.”)
In Hillary’s own words, “The basic rationale for depriving people of their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their position…….. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.”******
This ‘It Takes a Village Idiot’, Hillary Rodham Clinton, belongs nowhere remotely near the Presidency!
Hell to Pay...Hillary's credo, and also the title of an excellent book written about her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.