Posted on 11/01/2016 4:03:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
Three months ago, I wrote a column refuting the claim repeatedly made by supporters of Hillary Clinton that having a woman president -- specifically, Hillary Clinton -- would be a terrific thing for girls and young women.
In light of how much more we now know about Clinton's activities while secretary of state and the renewal by the FBI of its investigation of her private email server as well as the revelation, denied months ago by Clinton, that it is investigating her family-run charities, it is a topic worth revisiting. Good and decent men and women who are Democrats ought to stop thinking this way -- for America's sake and for their daughters' sake.
Only those in willful denial can continue to reject the overwhelming evidence that Clinton is essentially a crook, prone to chronic lying, and, worst of all, she has betrayed America's best interests for those of herself and her husband.
There is nothing I can say to those people.
But to those Democrats who will vote for Clinton but who are nevertheless able to acknowledge Hillary Clinton's extraordinary ethical defects, I make the following appeal: Do not believe, let alone claim, that having her as president, if she is elected, will be a good thing for your daughters.
Quite the contrary.
The notion that Hillary Clinton is a role model for young American women is yet another testimony to the moral decline of America -- not to mention to the moral state of the American Left and the Democratic Party.
While many of us who are voting for Donald Trump readily acknowledge our ambivalence over doing so, one never hears any moral ambivalence from Democrats, liberals or anyone else voting for Hillary Clinton.
Indeed, Clinton supporters -- especially women -- speak of the Democrats' nominee with pride. They actually say that they yearn for her to be president so as to serve as a model for young American women.
If Clinton supporters said, "I will support just about any Democrat for president, no matter how personally immoral, because I consider defeating Republicans the most important thing we Americans can do on Election Day," I could live with that.
The converse, after all, is my position. I will support just about any Republican for president, given the perhaps irreparable damage the Left and the Democrats have wreaked on America -- on its universities, its economy, its race relations, its standing in the world, its allies, on free speech and on the moral fabric of American life.
But Clinton supporters don't say that. Rather, they extol the virtues of a profoundly unethical woman who, mounting evidence indicates, sold her country's interests for her and her husband's personal and political gain. And they endlessly repeat the claim about how wonderful it would be for girls and young women to see this woman in the White House.
In my earlier column, I characterized the argument that it is important for women to vote for a woman president as morally primitive. I feel the same way about blacks voting for blacks, Jews for Jews, Hispanics for Hispanics, and Mormons for Mormons because the candidate is a member of their "tribe." Such group-think is the opposite of what America was set up to be -- a place where, for once, the individual, not the individual's group, is what most matters.
It is also worth noting that the majority of conservative women would not think this way. Women with conservative values are far less committed to female solidarity than liberal women.
Why is that?
Because conservatives do not think as tribally as liberals. People on the left think of themselves as worldly, but this is true only regarding national identity -- they value national identity far less than people on the right. But what the left has done is trade in national identity for race, gender and class identity.
Most conservative women are not impressed with the idea of "female solidarity." And almost all conservatives regard racial solidarity as just another term for racism.
Moreover, far more conservative women think that if a woman is going to serve as a model for their daughters, then her primary responsibility and achievement is making a healthy and character-building home. They are therefore less likely than liberal women to think in terms of astronaut or president when they think about a female role model for their daughter.
Certainly, in terms of America's well-being, they are right. America needs far more great mothers and wives than it needs female astronauts and presidents.
Any support for Hillary Clinton because she is a female is troubling. It is statement that gender identity is more important than moral character. That is the message every parent who asks his or her daughter to look to Hillary Clinton as a model is communicating.
HRC’s ads here on TV in Tampa all reflect this “for the children” message. Lying and cheating are values people want to instill? As I find myself telling my kids more and more with each passing day, beware the idiots and jerks out there. There are many.
Hillary’s role models...
Bonnie Parker
Ma Barker
Eva Peron
Emelda Marcos
Lilith
Salome
Lucrezia Borgia
Lizzy Borden
Only if you want your daughter to be a lying murdering traitorous political whore.
When demondogs start talking about children lay this quote on them. It shuts them up.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Mcmillian, p. 243
10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
I homeschool my 12 year old and I am including this quote in today’s history lesson (or maybe in our logic/critical thinking lesson).
Many people consider the Kardashians, Beyoncé, or other celebrities as suitable “role models” for their daughters, so why not Hillary Clinton?
Not to mention a woman who time after time overlooks her husband’s extramarital affairs, which is not only an emotionally abusive relationship but condones the abuse of other women. This is not a role model for anyone, in fact it allows victimization of women.
From the time Hillary got dismissed from the Watergate Special Prosecutor's office to the current mess with the private email server and the Clinton Foundation, we now know she is a power-hungry woman that will do anything to advance herself to the detriment of others--possibly including (dare I say it)--murder.
(/s)
Hillary as a role model for my sisters? Only if I want them to be Criminals... :-). No role models for my sisters would be our mom, our aunts, my dad’s mom...Not Hillary!! Hill, No!!
He had me until the last few paragraphs. Prager threw an otherwise intelligent piece right out the window by pushing the line of a woman’s place is in the home. Though I know that his intent was a much deeper meaning of what is seen (by his target audience for this piece) as an “antiquated” idea and I would never underestimate the importance of the woman’s role in the family unit, but the left just rolled their collective eyes when they got to his conclusion and the message was lost on those whom Prager targets.
Hey, I am all for strong women. Strong women in the home as well as in the professional world. And strong professional women can serve as fantastic role models for young gals... heck, or guys for that matter, looking for guidance and a path into the professional world. Where Hillary fails is that she put morals and ethics aside to achieve her goals. She used her husband and not only allowed him to use and abuse her, but attacked the female victims of her sexual predator husband in the purely selfish interest of wealth, power and fame. She sacrificed self-respect and all credibility and is now one of the most criminally corrupt politicians in this country’s history and she sold out the security of the United States for cold, hard cash.
Ma Barker was a strong woman as well. And in my opinion that is the point Dennis should have wrapped up his argument with. There is no gender bias when it comes to criminals and corruption. Hillary is not a role model, plain and simple. Hillary is a crook.
I have an older co-worker who was big for Bernie, fell in line with Hillary, and chortles daily at what the MSN or facebook pages have to say is the latest “Trump(ed)” news.
I went in to early vote yesterday and asked him if he’d voted yet (he lives in a different county). He said he never got registered.
Even his motivation for “Bern-ing” didn’t get him to the polls in the spring, let alone the fall.
The negativity online and in polls may not measure up much on election day.
The father(s) can and do run out on the family but the mother’s ‘choice’ is to kill her kid or raise her or him. That is why Prager ultimately says that if women want good role models for their daughters THEY should provide that counter message to the liberal establishment.
If Hillary is elected in 2016, it will expose the emptiness of the phony “outrage” about a “culture of corruption that rises to the top ranks of the GOP” in 2006. It will expose the emptiness of Obama’s promise of “transparency”, of Pelosi’s pledge to be the “most ethical” administration ever.
Every Democrat owes Richard M. Nixon an apology for the Watergate hearings, they were (as Obama supporters like to say) an attempt to overturn the re-election of a twice popularly elected president.
Looks like a false quote; I had just bookmarked it to share and was checking to see if was accurate.
https://www.libertariannews.org/2012/10/11/retraction-adolf-hilter-quote/
I took the quote from Mein Kampf
I actually read Hitlers book
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.