Thread: Hillary: Extremists who insist on clinging to the Founders

"Extremists" who insist on clinging to the Founders' vision fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village." Cultural Marxist, Hillary Clinton.

Vol. 12, No. 05
March 4, 1996

Hillary's Global Village
by William Norman Grigg

During his recent State of the Union address, Bill Clinton committed a significant slip of the tongue. While touching upon his Administration's efforts to enforce child support payments, Mr. Clinton declared: "A check will substitute for a parent's love and guidance." Whoops! As prepared for delivery, the text of the address specified that "A check will never be a substitute for a father's love and guidance"; perhaps Mr. Clinton simply could not force himself to utter the sentence as written. One need not be a disciple of Sigmund Freud to believe that unsettling truths are sometimes disclosed inadvertently - and Mr. Clinton's "Freudian slip" was actually a very tidy summation of his Administration's policies toward the family.

Fabian Model

Since coming to power in 1993, the Clinton vanguard has tirelessly urged the enrichment of AFDC, Head Start, and other federal welfare programs as a means of "investing in children." Such "investments" not only create an incentive for single parenthood, but also make the federal government the surrogate father. By subsidizing the mother, the state effectively controls the home.

This variety of social control was pioneered in the early years of this century by Britain's Fabian Socialists, who pursued the triumph of socialism through political conquest rather than communist-style violence. In his book New Worlds for Old, Fabian H.G. Wells wrote that "Socialism regards parentage under proper safeguards as 'not only a duty but a service' to the state; that is to say, it proposes to pay for good parentage - in other words, to endow the home."

The Clinton Administration is faithfully pursuing the Fabian vision of child care, and that vision is heartily endorsed in Hillary Rodham Clinton's opus, It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us.

Like the Fabians, whose insignia included a wolf in sheep's clothing, Mrs. Clinton seeks to camouflage her collectivism. The back cover of It Takes a Village displays a photograph of Mrs. Clinton surrounded by children, and its contents are written in the same faux-domestic prose which clutters Mrs. Clinton's syndicated column. Each chapter begins with a treacly epigram and a personal reminiscence, and some of the book's points are illustrated by cartoons. By design, the volume is as cloying and unsubstantial as cotton candy - but it is a confection laced with strychnine.

It Takes a Village is replete with designs for government "investment" in children. A typical passage insists: "The next time you hear someone using the word 'investment' to describe what we need to do for our youngest, most vulnerable family members, think about the investments the village has the power to make in children's first few weeks, months, and years. They will reap us all extraordinary dividends...."

The state must be a constant presence in the home in order to protect its "investment," and therapeutic police - in the form of social workers or "home visitors" - have no greater champion than Mrs. Clinton. "I cannot say enough in support of home visits," she declares. She obliquely chides Americans for failing to share her enthusiasm, noting that "all Western European countries provide some form of home health visitors." However, she is enthusiastic about early intervention programs presently in place in some states, such as Missouri's "Parents As Teachers" initiative (PAT) and Hawaii's "Healthy Start" program, both of which use home visitors to supervise parental decisions in the home.

The PAT program is intended to encourage the "intellectual development" of children by making each home an administrative unit of the social welfare state. "Certified Parent Educators" are assigned to each PAT home with the authority to intervene in parental decisions. Hawaii's "Healthy Start" program is similarly structured but justifies its interventionism in the name of preventing child abuse. Although the program is supposedly restricted to homes which are designated "at risk" of child abuse, Mrs. Clinton approvingly notes that Healthy Start "currently screens more than half of the sixteen thousand babies born in the state each year" - meaning that the program considers "at risk" homes to be the norm, and healthy homes the exception.

Writes Hillary, "If the family is considered to be at risk, Healthy Start offers a follow-up home visitor." But once the state has infiltrated the home, it does not confine itself to child abuse prevention. In a March 1993 profile of Healthy Start, ABC reporter Rebecca Chase observed, "The program is also proving to be an effective way to link families with other services - birth control, medical care, and preschool, for example."

Whose Children?

Collectivists from Plato to Mao Tse-tung have insisted that children are the "common property" of society, and that the state, rather than the parents, is the custodian of first resort. Mrs. Clinton tries to finesse the custodianship issue by depicting the state as a partner in child-rearing: "Keeping children healthy in body and mind is the family's and the village's first obligation." But this responsibility can only be exercised by one party - and the state, which is the instrument of coercion, is obviously the stronger party in this unequal "partnership."

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton admits as much by advising the reader that there are "terrible times when no adequate parenting is available and the village itself must act in place of parents. It accepts those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government...." In questions of child abuse or neglect, maintains Mrs. Clinton, "a child's safety must take precedence over the preservation of a family that has allowed abuse to occur" and "social workers and courts should make decisions about terminating parental rights of abusive parents more quickly, rather than removing and returning abused children time and again."

While this might appear to be a reasonable standard, it begs this question: How is "abuse" to be defined? Mrs. Clinton suggests that abuse may include not only physical battering and sexual molestation but "verbal violence." Furthermore, she is critical of homes which provide inadequate "brain food" for children, and asserts that the "village" must provide "more and better early education" for children who live in such homes. Might the failure of parents to provide federally approved "brain food" for their children be defined as a form of neglect, remediable only through the seizure of children by "village" authorities?

"Empowerment" and Control

Collectivist family schematics invariably include a eugenicist component, and Mrs. Clinton's vision is no exception. She offers an unqualified endorsement of the "Program of Action" produced by the United Nations at the 1994 population control summit in Cairo. She also declares that "Education and empowerment start with giving parents the means and the encouragement to plan pregnancy itself" and insists, "Some of the best models for doing this come from abroad." Recalling a clinic she visited in Indonesia, Mrs. Clinton writes: "Every month, tables are set up under the trees in a clearing, and doctors and nurses hold the clinic there. Women come to have their babies examined, to get medical advice, and to exchange information. A large poster-board chart notes the method of birth control each family is using, so that the women can compare problems and results." She describes this Indonesian clinic as "a wonderful example of how the village - both the immediate community and the larger society - can use basic resources to help families." The attentive reader might point out that the Indonesian model is also a vivid example of social regimentation through peer pressure: The program makes parents publicly accountable for their compliance with the state's population control policies.

Similar methods have been employed by the governments of Communist China, socialist India, and other havens of family "empowerment" - and Hillary unblushingly exalts this approach as a model for health care delivery in the United States.

Toward the "Global Village"

Mrs. Clinton scolds "anti-government extremists" for indulging in "second-guessing and cynicism about the motives and actions of every leader and institution" - a remarkable complaint coming from an activist who first earned notoriety as a member of the Watergate investigative team. Like Saddam Hussein, she knows the value of using children as a "human shield"; she urges readers to "try applying the invective you hear levelled broadly at 'government programs' directly to the children who are among their most important beneficiaries."

Nowhere in the book does she acknowledge the possibility that government may more often be a malefactor than a benefactor. Not surprisingly, Mrs. Clinton has little use for the Constitution and declares, "We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy solutions." "Extremists" who insist on clinging to the Founders' vision, according to Mrs. Clinton, "fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village."

One commentator who wants no part of Mrs. Clinton's "global village" is The Nation's Alexander Cockburn, an English expatriate whose childhood acquaintances included members of the Fabian Society's social circle. "Time and again, reading … It Takes a Village, I was reminded of [Fabian founder] Beatrice Webb," observes Cockburn. "There's the same imperious gleam, the same lust to improve the human condition until it conforms to the wretchedly constricted vision of freedom that gave us social-worker liberalism, otherwise known as therapeutic policing."

Lest it be forgotten, in Waco the Clinton Administration improved upon Fabian-style "therapeutic policing" by introducing immolation as child therapy - a potent reminder of why parents should be very suspicious when the "village" elders show up on their doorstep.

http://www.realnews247.com/hillary%27s_ ... illage.htm

Can anyone find us actual audio or video of Hillary Clinton making this "extremists oppose Global village" comment?

W

I found this, not sure what Ive found yet...

Marshall McLuhan - Explorations - 05-18-1960 - The World is a Global Village
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6FDcUutj8

Text of Hillary Clinton Speech

Tuesday, Aug. 27, 1996
© Associated Press

CREATING CONSENSUS, RESISTING EXTREMIST RHETORIC

We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy olutions. Even if a golden age had existed, we could not simply graft it onto today's busier, more impersonal and complicated world. Instead, our challenge is to arrive at a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities. Creating that consensus in a democracy depends on seriously considering other points of view, resisting the lure of extremist rhetoric, and balancing individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations.

It Takes A Village....'


By Hillary Rodham Clinton

I write these words looking out through the windows in the White House at the city of Washington in all its beauty and squalor, promise and despair. In the shadow of great power, so many feel powerless. These contradictions color my feelings when I think about my own child and all our children. My worry for these children has increased, but remarkably, so has my hope for their future.

REASONS FOR OPTIMISM

We know much more now than we did even a few years ago about how the human brain develops and what children need from their environments to develop character, empathy, and intelligence. When we put this knowledge into practice, the results are astonishing. Also, because when I read, travel, and talk with people around the world, it is increasingly clear to me that nearly every problem children face today has been solved somewhere, by someone. And finally, because I sense a new willingness on the part of many parents and citizens to turn down the decibel level on our political conflicts and start paying attention to what works.

There's an old saying I love: You can't roll up your sleeves and get to work if you're still wringing your hands. So if you, like me, are worrying about our kids; if you, like me, have wondered how we can match our actions to our words, I'd like to share with you some of the convictions I've developed over a lifetime--not only as an advocate and a citizen but as a mother, daughter, sister, and wife--about what our children need from us and what we owe to them.

"IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD"

I chose that old African proverb to title my book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them. The sage who first offered that proverb would undoubtedly be bewildered by what constitutes the modern village. In earlier times and places--and until recently in our own culture--the "village" meant an actual geographic place where individuals and families lived and worked together.

For most of us, though, the village doesn't look like that anymore. In fact, it's difficult to paint a picture of the modern village, so frantic and fragmented has much of our culture become. Extended families rarely live in the same town, let alone the same house. In many communities, crime and fear keep us behind locked doors. Where we used to chat with neighbors on stoops and porches, now we watch videos in our darkened living rooms. Instead of strolling down Main Street, we spend hours in automobiles and at anonymous shopping malls. We don't join civic associations, churches, union, political parties, or even bowling leagues the way we used to.

WE CAN'T TURN AWAY FROM THIS BRAVE NEW WORLD

The horizons of the contemporary village extend well beyond the town line. From the moment we are born, we are exposed to vast numbers of other people and influences through the media. Technology connects us to the impersonal global village it has created.

To many, this brave new world seems dehumanizing and inhospitable. It is not surprising, then,, that there is a yearning for the "good old days" as a refuge from the problems of the present. But by turning away, we blind ourselves to the continuing, evolving presence of the village in our lives, and its critical importance for how we live together. The village can no longer be defined as a place on a map, or as a list of people or organizations, but its essence remains the same: it is the network of values and relationships that support and affect our lives.

NEW WAYS OF COMING TOGETHER

One of the honors of being First Lady is the opportunity I have to go out into the world and to see what individuals and communities are doing to help themselves and their children. I have had the privilege of talking with mothers, fathers, grandparents, civic clubs, Scout troops, PTAs, and church groups. From these many conversations, I know Americans everywhere are searching for--and often finding--new ways to support one another.

Even our technology offers us new ways of coming together, through radio talk shows, e-mail and the Internet. The networks of relationships we form and depend on are our modern-day villages, but they reach well beyond the city limits. Many of them necessarily involve the whole nation. They are the basis for our "civil society," a term social scientists use to describe the way we work together for common purposes. Whether we harness their potential for the greater good or allow ourselves to drift into alienation and divisiveness depends on the choices we make now.

CREATING CONSENSUS, RESISTING EXTREMIST RHETORIC

We cannot move forward by looking to the past for easy olutions. Even if a golden age had existed, we could not simply graft it onto today's busier, more impersonal and complicated world. Instead, our challenge is to arrive at a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities. Creating that consensus in a democracy depends on seriously considering other points of view, resisting the lure of extremist rhetoric, and balancing individual rights and freedoms with personal responsibility and mutual obligations.

THE TRUE TEST...

of the consensus we build is how well we care for our children. For a child, the village must remain personal. Talking to a baby while changing a diaper, playing airplane to entice a toddler to accept a spoonful of food, tossing a ball back and forth with a teenager, are tasks that cannot be carried out in cyberspace. They require the presence of caring adults who are dedicated to children's growth, nurturing, and well-being.

What we do to participate in and support that network--from the way we care for our own children to the jobs we do, the causes we join, and the kinds of legislation we support--is mirrored every day in the experiences of America's children. We can read our national character most plainly in the result.

MORALITY, AND SELF-INTEREST, AT STAKE

How we care for our own and other people's children isn't only a question of morality; our self-interest is at stake too. No family is immune to the influences of the larger society. No matter what my husband and I do to protect and prepare Chelsea, her future will be affected by how other children are being raised. I don't want her to grow up in an America sharply divided by income, race, or religion. I'd like to minimize the odds of her suffering at the hands of someone who didn't have enough love or discipline, opportunity or responsibility, as a child. I want her to believe, as her father and I did, that the American Dream is within reach of anyone willing to work hard and take responsibility. I want her to live in an America that is still strong and promising to its own citizens and lives up to its image throughout the world as a land of hope and opportunity.

THIS, THEN, IS AN INVITATION TO A JOURNEY...

we can take together, as parents and as citizens of this country, united in the belief that children are what matter--more than the size of our bank accounts or the kinds of cars we drive. As Jackie Kennedy Onassis said, "If you bungle raising your children, I don't think whatever else you do matters very much." That goes for each of us, whether or not we are parents--and for all of us as a nation.

http://www.happinessonline.org/LoveAndH ... en/p12.htm

"Extremists" who insist on clinging to the Founders' vision fail to provide a viable pathway from the cold war to the global village." Cultural Marxist, Hillary Clinton.

So what? Where in our concept of government, as defined by the US Constitution, are we required to have a pathway to the global village? I recall our founding fathers actually warned us to beware of foreign entanglements.