Replies

LOL...... that is funny. Certainly people who talk about wanting to be president when they are right out of the sand box should be suspect! ;-)

By the way, I don't know if you ever kept this stuff for your use

********

Hillary is the FREAK she is for a few reasons, but a guy by the name of Rev. Don Jones is one major reason. He was the young "hip" youth minister at her First Methodist Church of Park Ridge (Illinois) who influenced her greatly.

From Gail Sheehy's book Hillary's Choice ---

Another important older man entered Hillary's life that same year (1961), when she was hovering between thirteen and fourteen on the cusp of adolescence. He was a tall, blond, blue-eyed man who wore a crew cut and white bucks and tooled around town in a bright red Impala convertible. He was young and all the girls thought he was good looking. But Don Jones was also a true intellectual- Hillary's type. Twenty-six and fresh from divinity school at Drew University across the Hudson River from New York City, he succeeded three youth ministers who had been safe and traditional. Jones represented a radical change for the sleepy First Methodist Church of Park Ridge.

"New ideas were frowned upon in our community," says Patsy Henderson Bowles. "We hadn't been exposed to diversity. Don wanted us to think about where other people were coming from and to understand their problems."

Jones was the only alternative reality in town. On Sunday evenings in September of 1961, he would offer Hillary's church youth his version of the "University of Life" program. He had been outside the sterile world of suburbia and could offer a window onto the more exotic worlds of abstract art. Beat poetry, existentialism, and the rumblings of radical political thought and counterculture politics that were eventually to explode under the smug slumber of even the good gray burghers of Park Ridge."

If you haven't yet read 'Hillary's Choice', it's very helpful in understanding from where Hillary is coming.

******

Also:

If she throws herself into the race in 2008, the following paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it please, or save it for the future, because it goes right to her very inappropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and gladly paint a very positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.

In the event she runs in 2008, you and I owe it to the country to hand this out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence, and try to help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is.

She will continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the media is quite willing to protect and promote her as in the past.

Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.

**********************

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.”