They want Your Children!
The traditional family has from antiquity been the basis of free government and clearly the Clinton administration was on the offensive against families since its inauguration. This administration cuddled-up to special-interest sex and eugenics groups, the two most pernicious types of interests to family integrity.
After demonizing Dan Quayle for his position on “family values” the collectivists are now attempting to fool Americans with their brand of family values that includes Hillary’s “village” and Big Government raising your children.
Just what are Clinton’s family values?
Democratic Party convention speeches defined the family as “all of us,” the entire nation, a state collective. “The gay and lesbian community is an American family in the best sense of the word,” declared one of Clinton’s top homosexual advisors. The Republican Party Platform, in contrast, references the family as “home” and as “the core institution of society” which fosters “the virtues – honesty, self-discipline, mutual respect – that make a free society strong.”
We all think of ourselves as part of a family, and caring about our families is one of the values Clinton says he has in common. He talks about making a difference for families, and about the value of policies that strengthen and protect families. Families are strengthened, they say, by giving parents the tools they need: family and medical leave, health care for our parents, education for our children, clean water and safe communities.
Hillary Clinton commented, “two-mothers, or two men… the children are what’s important… they are for the use of the government…”
Sounding like a kindergarten teacher talking to her young class, Hillary Clinton repeated in her speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention her belief that children should be raised by a “village.” She clarified what she meant in her 2016 acceptance speech at the DNC saying, “None of us can raise a family, build a business, heal a community or lift a country totally alone.”
The Clinton’s not only redefined the family but they created an Orwellian euphemism for bureaucracy to replace it.
Hillary’s “village” sounds much like George Orwell’s brilliant satire on twentieth-century collectivism entitled Animal Farm.
It is the story of a revolution staged by animals on Farmer Jones’ place. As with all revolutions, there were leaders and there were followers. In this case, the pigs became the leaders since they were, through no fault of the others, a little smarter than the rest.
One of their first official acts was to draft a statement of seven principles which were then painted on the back wall of the barn for all to see. These principles became the basis of the new order and were designed to protect the animals from any future injustice or infringements on their rights. There were noble pronouncements as “No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages”; “No animal shall sleep in a bed”; and “No animal shall kill another animal.” But the greatest and wisest of these was, “All animals are equal.”
As the months became years, however, things did not turn out quite the way the “workers” had expected. They were working twice as hard and eating half as well as they had when they were “exploited” by Farmer Jones – all of them, that is, except for the rulers, the pigs, who were now drinking Jones’ ale and sleeping in his bed. When the puzzled workers tried to figure out how things turned out this way, they went to the rear of the barn to see if there was not something in the seven great principles prohibiting this kind of injustice. They found, instead, that the principles were now worded slightly differently. Indeed, just a few words changed here and there completely changed the picture: “No animal shall drink alcoholic beverages … to excess”; “No animal shall sleep in a bed … with sheets”; No animal shall kill another animal … without cause.” But by far the worst shock of all came when the poor creatures turned with hope to the seventh principle guaranteeing their rights but which now declared, “All animals are equal … but some animals are more equal than others.”
There is a new legal theory spreading among abortion enthusiasts — abortion as self-defense. This theory, reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education, acknowledges the humanity of the unborn child but sees the prenatal life as an intruder to be eliminated. In her new book, Breaking Abortion Deadlock: From Choice to Consent, Eileen McDonagh uses this chilling argument: “Even in a medically normal pregnancy, the fetus massively intrudes on a woman’s body and expropriates her liberty. If the woman does not consent to this transformation and use of her body, the fetus’s imposition constitutes injuries sufficient to justify the use of deadly force to stop it.” She is advocating a coldly, calculated form of “justifiable homicide.”
“We are redefining in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning.” – President Bill Clinton, Nov. 8, 1997
College professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry echoed Hillary’s sentiment saying your children are not yours – they are owned by the community.
Make no mistake… your children and the family are the targets of collectivists to be forever changed.
“The way to achieve world peace is to remove one of the causes of war which lies below the surface, and which is not talked of as much as national rights and national honor. This cause is uncontrolled birth rates. We must have a wide-spread dissemination of contraceptive knowledge throughout the world… No program for world peace can hope to succeed which does not make place among its other provisions for the increasing use of birth control.” [Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108]
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are strong supporters of Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton won Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 2009 where she honored Margaret Sanger. She received more than $10,000 from the organization during two Senate runs and failed 2008 primary against President Barack Obama. In 2016, Planned Parenthood endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the first endorsement in its 100-year existence.
Margaret Sanger, the so-called mother of birth control and founder of what has become modern day Planned Parenthood, believed in a policy of race improvement to “create a race of thoroughbreds.” In 1922, Sanger wrote: “Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly. People who cannot support their own offspring are encouraged by church and state to produce large families. Many of the children thus begotten are diseased and feebleminded. Many become criminals. Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to the maintenance of those who should have never been born.” Sanger wanted a cleaner race without morons, mental defectives, epileptics, illiterates, paupers, unemployables, criminals, prostitutes, and dope-fiends. [Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108]
Strangely, one of the Clinton’s biggest supporters are African-American voters, one of the biggest targets for extermination in Sanger’s cleaner race. Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” [Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.]
In the summer of 2009, Life Dynamics released the documentary film, Maafa 21. Its basic contention is that terms like “population control” and “family planning” are code words for a genocidal effort aimed at minorities – primarily African-Americans.
- The Clinton administration expanded the right of minors to abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right of minors to obtain abortions without notifying their parents. If a minor is found to be mature enough to make the choice on her own and does not want her parents to know about it, a judge must allow an abortion under a series of Supreme Court rulings dating to 1979. Beginning with a Massachusetts case 18 years ago, the court has protected access to abortion for pregnant minors by assuring that they could obtain permission from a state judge if they did not want to involve their parents.
- Restricted the rights of parents in connection with compulsory sex and AIDS education.
- Advocated a looser standard of child pornography
- Promoted so-called “children’s rights” that can be independently asserted by children against their parents.
- Broadened the definition of “child abuse.” Today, the courts and bureaucrats throughout government are taking children away from their families when they declare medical child abuse. Take, for example, a 15-year-old Connecticut girl, Justina Pelletier, who became the victim of Boston Childrens Hospital’s “kidnap and ransom” operation under the excuse of a contrived medical diagnosis. Through legal maneuvering, the hospital managed to gain legal custody of the girl on February 14, 2013, and the “ransom demand” is the demand that the parents stop trying to remove the girl from the hospital so that Boston Children’s can generate maximum revenue from so-called “treatments” which have so far accomplished nothing. The hospital cited “both parents’ resistance towards recommended treatment plans” as part of its justification for kidnapping the girl. Make sure you fully grasp what this means: IF YOU DO NOT AGREE with a doctor’s diagnosis of your child, the hospital will kidnap that child for an indefinite period, and local law enforcement authorities will very likely side with the hospital rather than the parents.
Should doctors and bureaucrats be allowed to overrule parents when it comes to their children’s healthcare?Tragically, this is NOT an isolated case. Examples of this kind of medical tyranny are increasing all across the country where children are treated as pawns for economic exploitation for corrupt judges and government agencies. Watch this video exposing the abuses of America’s Justice system, particularly in the family courts.Families are separated unnecessarily everyday by the abusive power of Child Protective Services (CPS) while foster children are suffering and dying for greed of tax payer dollars. Children are being unjustly removed from loving families (no finding of abuse or neglect!). $4,000 to $6,000 cash bonus incentive dollars are paid for every child doped up and not returned to their families. [re; The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act – signed by Bill Clinton].Children are disappearing by the thousands in this system raising serious questions of both competence and child trafficking. Black children are a targeted group because they are labeled “special needs” and a higher financial incentive to both remove and adopt out. Former Oregon Government Prosecutor admits Child Protective Services is just organized “Kidnaping” for $85,000 per child from the Federals Government to State Governments.Children as young as 3-years old and younger are being taken from their families and put into foster care where they are given psychotropic drugs.In other examples you won’t hear about in the news is where children are taken from families and sold by CPS into child sex trafficking and prostitution.CPS is a manifestation of governmental overreach in its most insidious form. Do you think the “protect our kids act” actually protected more kids, or did it further incentive an already established industry to snatch more kids from loving parents?Now, I understand there are legitimate cases where children need to be protected from abusive parents. But, as long as there is a financial incentive for removing children from their parents, there will continue to be tragic abuses of the system by corrupt judges, government agencies, and others who profit from the trafficking of children. I understand too, there are a few good people working inside the mostly corrupt CPS system. When they raise their voices in opposition to corruption or become whistle blowers exposing the corruption, they are fired and slapped with gag orders by equally corrupt judges who want to maintain the profitable status quo.
- The National Endowment For the Arts with a director appointed by Bill Clinton continue to support obscene and sacrilegious paintings, sculpture and photographs with your tax money.
When Diocletian published his draconian Edict of 301, destroying the few remaining liberties of the old republic, he justified it by referring to himself and his associates as “the watchful parents of the whole human race.” Rulers have ever been tempted to play the role of father to their people. In his justification for state direction of the national economy, A.P. Lerner defended rationing “as a form of guardianship” that the state should exercise over the population in order “to prevent foolish spending.” (Abba P. Lerner, The Economics of Control (New York: Macmillan, 1944), pg. 52.)
The paternal state not only feeds its children, but nurtures, educates, comforts, and disciplines them, providing all they need for their security. This appears to be a mildly insulting way to treat adults, but it is really a great crime because it transforms the state from being a gift of God, given to protect us against violence, into an idol. It supplies us with all blessings, and we look to it for all our needs. Once we sink to that level, as C.S. Lewis says, there is no point in telling state officials to mind their own business. “Our whole lives are their business.”
The paternal states thrives on dependency. When the dependents free themselves, it loses power. It is, therefore, parasitic on the very persons whom it turns into parasites. Thus, the state and its dependents march symbiotically to destruction. When the provision of paternal security replaces the provision of justice as the function of the state, the state stops providing justice. The surrogate parent ceases executing judgment against those who violate the law, and the nation begins losing the benefits of justice.
Yes We Can
Believing that it takes more than a family to raise children, Clinton’s big government “Village People” hummed and buzzed about the need for families to park the kiddies in “quality child care centers.” President Clinton even suggested putting Hillary in charge of Welfare reform. Imagine that! Take the one woman who is probably the greatest enemy of children and put her in charge of programs that most affect our children. Yes, folks, the Clinton’s do want to “change welfare as we know it.”
Building upon the Clinton “village” legacy, Barack Obama’s Youth Corps envisions a new progressive youth movement among the Millennial (18- to 29-year-old) generation that they will use to indoctrinate your children with collectivist values. They hope, unlike the political crusades of the 1960s youth rebellion, this youth corps will be part of a broader, multi-generational coalition.
Obama says that “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the military.” This alone is enough to send shivers up an informed spine, but it gets even worse when you hear the specifics. Obama intends to use a radical activist group he helped found called “Public Allies” as the model for his Orwellian program, ‘Universal Voluntary Public Service.’ Its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about ‘social change’ through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.
It said on Obama official website, “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.” The use of the word “require” suggested that the program would be mandatory, stoking fears that such community service programs would be one aspect of Obama’s promised “civilian national security force” that is “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the U.S. military.
Fears of “youth brigades” or civilian stasi units increased following Obama’s appointment of Rahm Emanuel to chief-of staff. In his book, “The Plan: Big Ideas for America,” Emanuel writes: “It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service.”
The House passed a bill on March 18, 2009 which includes disturbing language indicating young people will be forced to undertake mandatory national service programs. The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act, now goes to the Senate. Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” in subsection B6, the legislation states that a commission will be set up to investigate, “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.” Section 120 of the bill also discusses the “Youth Engagement Zone Program” and states that “service learning” will be “a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.”
The frightening prospect of Obama’s mandatory government servitude is covered in-depth in Alex Jones’ new documentary blockbuster, The Obama Deception.
When Democrats say, “The first and most sacred responsibility of every parent is to cherish our children and strengthen our families.” What they really mean is for parents to give government more of their income so that big wasteful government programs can continue. They speak of supporting the family but what they support is a kinder and gentler way of destroying the traditional family and raising up a village or commune that is in tune with their distorted vision.
President Clinton revoked Executive Order #12606 issued by President Ronald Reagan on September 2, 1987. The policy required the federal government to consider the impact of new rules and regulations on the American family prior to their enactment.
“It is outrageous that President Clinton would claim that he is supportive of the family, yet repeal the Executive Order which was the very foundation of the pro-family movement in the White House,” Rick Robinson, candidate for Congress, said. “This is yet another example of the President talking out of one side of his political mouth, but governing from the other side. You have to wonder which Bill Clinton will get out of bed on a day-to-day basis.”
The seven points of the Reagan pro-family test are as follows:
- Does this action strengthen or erode the stability of the family?
- Does this action strengthen or erode the rights of parents?
- Does this action help the family or try to substitute the government in family functions?
- Does the action increase or decrease family earnings?
- Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by the family itself?
- What message, intended or otherwise, does the action send to the public regarding the status of the family?
- What message does the action send to young people concerning the relationship between their behavior, their responsibility, and the norms of society?
Social spending advocates expect government to substitute for mothers and fathers. Social spending by the federal government for children and families has increased dramatically since 1960, yet, almost all indicators suggest that child well being today lags behind what it was three decades ago. Clinton’s “Bridge to the future” means more money and less results.
Democrats say, “We want to strengthen middle-class families by providing a $500 tax cut for children.” Yet, on Dec. 6, 1995, Clinton vetoed the $500-per-child tax credit for more than 29 million middle-class families.
Clinton’s deceptive characterization of the deficit is nothing short of mortgaging our children’s future.
While bemoaning charges of Republican intrusion into the bedroom, the Democratic leadership wants not only to intrude into the bedroom, but into the kitchen, the living room, the utility room, your garbage can, the garage, the workplace, the schools, the doctors office and hospital – to control all aspects of our lives – but, especially raising children.
A bridge to the next millennium is essential but it must not be built upon the disasters of the past or on a redefined family that seeks to obscure such failures. It must be built on the age-old definition of the family as the cornerstone of society. From this essential base we can build and foster what the great statesman Edmund Burke called the “little platoons,” the churches, neighborhoods and charities that emanate from the nurturing love of the family. These “little platoons” embody the belief that those closest to the need or problem are best suited to solve it. For they are not an end unto themselves but a direct extension of the family which is the institution closest to man’s needs. A bridge built on the pillars of the family and paved with the principle of subsidiarity will lead us toward a millennium that truly secures the dignity of man. Our children deserve more than the failed pipe dreams of the past. We must not buy Mr. Clinton’s bridge – it is used and broken. [Keith A. Fournier, Esq., Used Bridge For Sale, Law & Justice, Vol. 1, Number 5]