A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘democrat’

Obama & New Police Reform

reposted from Canada Free Press by Moody Jim Rathbone

Obama police flagMayors and city councils—in office largely courtesy of public apathy—are President Barack Obama’s boots on the ground in the ongoing, carefully orchestrated racial riots coming soon to a city near you. In their bid to rescue America from total Marxist eclipse, patriots, as it turns out, have been knocking on the wrong door.

Republicans, who surrendered to the Democrats even after taking over House and Senate in last Midterm elections, have no dog in the racial riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other cities, but Mayor Stephanie Rowlings-Blake, who ordered a police stand down in Baltimore, and a bevy of other Democrat mayors, do.

With the undercover help of activist municipal mayors and councils, Obama seeks not to reform the nation’s police—but to totally replace them.

obamas new dealWhile diverting public attention by snubbing senators, and overriding both Constitution and Congress, Obama is now hammering the final nail in the Fundamental Transformation of America coffin.

It’s a mission aided and abetted by mercenary ‘civil rights‘ activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and one largely conducted out of sight with White House help.

Local civic elections consistently have the lowest voter turnout, yet represent the level of government that poses the biggest threat to liberty and freedom. It is through complicit mayors and councils that the United Nations has been able to forge the road to Agenda 21 for all of Western society. here

As incredible as it may seem, it is with the cooperation of municipal politicians that Obama will get to replace every police force in the United States with a more military styled one that is answerable only to him.

Baltimore riots 1‘We the People’ should have seen Baltimore and Ferguson coming on July 2, 2008, when Obama boasted in Colorado Springs, CO:  “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Most assumed he was talking about the military, which he soon began to hollow out.

Few realized the most anti-American president ever elected had his sight fixed on replacing thousands of police forces across the country, whose job it has always been to keep the public peace, with his own military-style police.

It’s the return of Fidel Castro, only this time in America.

By ridding the nation of its traditional police forces, Obama and his army of activist municipal politicians will be tossing into the trash can first responders who happen to wear the Serve & Protect badge.

Getting there has been Marxist Community organizing all the way.

Scott-police-fatal-shootingFirst came the smear job spreading the fallacy that police deliberately profile only young blacks, and are addicted to the habit of randomly shooting them. Marxist propaganda leaves the disingenuous impression that racist rogue cops dominate most police forces.

Within days of the Baltimore riots, Obama made it clear he wouldn’t be surveying the damage; wouldn’t be lifting a finger to call for calm.

He didn’t have to with the mayor doing his dirty work.

Baltimore riot policeOne hundred police officers were injured in the Baltimore riots. Businesses up and running only the day before were left in burnt-out rubble, facts carelessly written off by Obama.

Obama’s reaction to what’s going on in Baltimore has been expressed in words as casual as they are well crafted:

“The communities in Baltimore that are having these problems now are no different from the communities in Chicago when I first started working” as a community organizer, Obama said. “I’ve seen this movie too many times before.” (National Journal, April 29, 2015)

The difference now is that it’s Obama directing the racial riot movie.

With the Republicans snoozing at the switch, and most unsuspecting folk not knowing that Obama’s boots on the ground are the municipalities, what’s going to stop him from accomplishing his latest mission?

debtor's prison - tyrannyObama counts on the same kind of apathy that dogs municipal elections about racial riots that are being staged, right down to including outside protesters being rushed in to the scene of the riots.

Like in televised episodes of Hill Street Blues, when the Black Arrows, Shamrocks and Los Diablos came together when there was something in it for them, the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam came together in Baltimore.

That coming together of the three parties was unprecedented.

Yet, instead of asking why the Bloods, the Crips and the Nation of Islam would come together during the Baltimore riots, Rowlings-Blake thanked the Nation of Islam.

Talk show radio giant and patriot Mark Levin points out that Rowlings-Blake was in constant touch with chief Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett throughout the riots.

gas canBy throwing gasoline on the racial discord gathering steam in American cities, is Obama sending a message to America’s foreign enemies that the U.S. is now at its most vulnerable for a strike?

Are internet commenters like Richard Jackson who posits: “I think the riots are simply programming people to get used to a military presence (instead of police) and curfews, etc. for something bigger later on”, on the right track?

Should edgy folk be watching the Jade Helm 15 large-scale military exercise to be played out from July 15 to November 15, across seven states, with thousands of locals “participating or role playing in the exercise” wearing I.D. markings be watching the military instead of passively letting the military watch them?

Meanwhile, speaking to a group of schoolchildren at the Anacostia Library in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, Obama said he might return to community organizing.

In truth, his plans to nationalize America’s police forces, prove he’s never left it.

overthrow

police Baltimore letter

Where is the Family Rights Agenda in Politics?

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

If you are an independent thinker that wants change, you might just want to love Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the Democratic party platform that he stands on is not a platform that is good for the family or its continued cohesion in any way. His experience with his own father blends with that of the Democratic platform. The platform deals with the profound legend of “mommyhood”: where any mom can and should do it all. Further, if mommy can’t manage for any reason, Uncle Sammy is right there with cash and assistance. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, does it not? If you don’t have a village to support you, Uncle Sammy certainly will. No effort is made at the promotion of the tired subject of “Republican” family values or the rights of the American family as a whole. The platform is all about the promotion of children’s rights and the rights of single parents, which usually happens to be the mother.

where are family rights?

where are family rights?

The reality is that this circumstance is more by design than by circumstance. When unhappy women, feminists and complicit Democratic politicians brought the initial round of federal welfare reform into play in the 1980’s, men were generally promoted as the bane and single cause of conflict and pain in the American family. Anyone that has a lick of sense in their head certainly knows that a women has a significant responsibility for the plight of her family along with the success of that family. This wasn’t on the minds of most women thirty years ago and most of America was conned into believing the clever lie along with the solution that never had a hope to work beyond empowering politicians and big government.

Now the Democratic National Convention is ready with a fine program for economic and social renewal. Unfortunately, men have been left out of the mix or at least in a positive sense. The platform’s agenda puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, while promising to “crack down” on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children. Nothing has changed from thirty years ago, much less since the Clinton Administration, which forced much of the Bradley Amendment upon the nation.

Not a mention about family values on the religious front.

not a mention about family values on the religious front.

Research proves that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male conduct of any kind. When a married or cohabiting couple splits up, the father is generally relegated to guest visitor status, participating in his children’s lives only if mommy allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, while enforcing fathers’ visitation rights indifferently.

Democrats claim that we will gain billions of dollars in revenue by taxing the “windfall profits” of oil companies just like Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s. That debacle didn’t work causing the loss of revenue rather than revenue gains. Similarly, the DNC promotes the illusion that cracking down on child support will create a windfall for single mothers and the ever-needy children of America. That myth hasn’t worked since this inception of Democratic legislation that Senator Bradley and his cohorts initiated so long ago, supposedly without any hope of success.

66 percent of parents behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages. Less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by parents earning $40,000 or more a year. Starry-eyed politicians eye big income earners with the idea of promoting their cause as payback for rich, snotty and abusive fathers that could care less about their poor children. The promotion is all about inciting prejudice against fathers and men in general to promote a political cause and a monetary system.

domestic violence emphasis

domestic violence emphasis

The Democratic National Convention platform pledges to “strengthen domestic violence laws,” support the Violence Against Women Act, and increase funding for domestic violence programs. This writer says that this is a pander to the increasing number of single women with children, an act that is wholly unnecessary.

Society justly despises a wife-beater and child-abuser. This family policy scenario has been used to justify many destructive policies regarding the family as well as civil liberties violations like the Bradley Amendment. The system has provided easy ways for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes, exclude them from their children’s lives and work them over financially in the name of just law and individual rights for children and single parents.

The American family is in real danger from the very politics that claim to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, men are not protected by federal law and are seen only as surrogate money bags for the system. Moms often design to milk the system for everything it is worth because they are entitled to it. The world owes the disgruntled for their displeasure. The rights of the family to exist or the promotion of the simple act to simply get along in harmony isn’t discussed or encouraged. Morality isn’t the job of the State and yet politicians claim higher moral ground. The Democratic Party line has obligated itself to family policies that don’t work and never did in the name of “feel-good individual rights” that violate Constitutional rights for millions of hard-working and now disadvantaged Americans. This is troubling. Republicans have simply stood by or endorsed the same politics. In the land of family law, politicians have generally proved themselves to be the of the same stripe. This is no less troubling.

right with a wrong

right with a wrong

You can’t make a right with a wrong and certainly few politicians have taken anti-family policies to task. The crisis in the family is the perfect opportunity for an election issue, but perhaps an issue that politicians feel is too hot to handle on the front lines. Republicans continue to address the same old family values politics without addressing the damage done by unconstitutional and abusive political policy and law. Politicians would do well to figure out that righting a wrong with a wrong is worse than bad politics before summarily promoting the same old policies that dismantle the American family in favor of political empowerment. Somewhere, somehow, a day of reckoning is in the mix.

~ E. Manning

Barack Obama Attacks Non-Custodial Parents

Senators say men must take responsibility for raising their children.

Back on Father’s Day, Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama made what was supposed to be inflammatory comments against absentee fathers, notably African-American ones. Barack Obama, like many Democrats, seems to have plenty on his mind that he isn’t saying clearly.

Democrats are sponsoring an effort through Senators Barack Obama and Evan Bayh to intensify child support enforcement. On the surface, this appears to be a good idea. However, what is not said is that major areas of child support law are absolutely unconstitutional, sponsored by Democrats and others as far back as the Bradley Amendment in the 1980s. None of the federal law has been repealed.

The country has a national epidemic of absentee fathers. This much may be true as statistics reveal, but Senators are looking at a symptom rather than a cause. However, creative Democrats have designed “The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 as their latest social engineering effort.

The legislation claims to offer support for fathers trying to do the right thing while cracking down on men that avoid “parental responsibility”. The bill is designed to provide fathers with “innovative job training” and other nameless economic opportunities while using a typical social engineering tool called the “Earned Income Tax Credit.” Hillary Clinton favored the same kind of tactics. The idea is to “help” non-custodial parents to support their families.

Combined with the unconstitutional Bradley Amendment and other similarly-styled state laws, the idea is designed to encourage the idea of outright slavery to government authority in the name of doing the right thing because, after all, the government is always there to help honest men. The track record of politicians since the Clinton presidential daze has proved otherwise as feminists took advantage of opportunities to oppress men in the name of child law, welfare reform and rightful propriety.

The “Bayh-Obama legislation” is designed to strengthen violence prevention services, once again looking at symptoms rather than causes. The proposed law is supposed to ensure that money paid for child support goes “directly to children and their mothers”, without loss of food assistance for eligible families. The same old stinking thinking that mothers are without cause in the whole process of divorce and child-rearing is offensive. The fact that politicians want to green-stamp domestic violence by supporting negative parental attitudes, including sexual immorality is even more reprehensible. Women and men are not saints and law needs to stop treating them like saints.

Senator Evan Bayh stated, “Fatherlessness is an issue many politicians would prefer to avoid, but elected officials have a moral obligation not to sit idly by while communities crumble because of the epidemic of absentee fathers. I am not naïve enough to believe that government alone can solve this problem, but together we can play a constructive role in crafting policies that attack the root causes of this epidemic.” Unfortunately, government tactics of the past have not and do not encourage family-building, but rather societal destruction.

It can be argued that the welfare system and even child support measures are a wonderful thing for many. However, the cost to the country cannot be unconstitutional state and federal laws that are supported by politicians. For example, the federal Bradley Amendment along with a flotilla of state laws that support the violation of a number of Constitutional Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Currently these Constitutional Rights are actively violated as well as other civil rights:

1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

In a typical multi-pronged attack, the U.S. House of Representatives has companion legislation that is being introduced by Democrats Julia Carson and Danny Davis. Earmark spending is certain to follow as the legislation is crafted and agreed upon between the two legislative bodies.

Last year, Congress passed legislation based on a proposal introduced by Senator Bayh that provided up to $50 million each year for the next five years in funding for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide as part of a spending reconciliation bill to prepare for future legislation that is on the board now.

Does this political scene sound like the new politics of hope to you?

The Road to Good Intentions: Free Attorneys

Democrat Senator Joe Biden is working to employ new domestic violence legislation which portends to cost state and federal government millions and further prejudice the law against honest fathers. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Senator Biden is no exception.

Biden’s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden’s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody.

S.1515 will do some good in aiding abused low-income women. The problem is that the bill will also greatly exacerbate the already widespread problem of false domestic violence claims being used to strip decent, loving fathers of custody of their children. Bill S1515 has a price tag of 55.5 million over 5 years. When Senator Biden was confronted with the cost of the bill, he said that he had not considered the cost. Mothers and teary-eyed feminist programmers would have you believe that no cost is too great for justice.

Naturally, there is no mechanism within the bill to distinguish between false accusations and legitimate ones. This remains the achilles heel of the entire system that continues to be ignored.

Archive: Bradley's Poverty Push

This article was published in 1999, just as Bill Bradley was running for President of the United States. It’s strange how politicians, notably Democrats, quote the same old mess about poverty and about they want to help poor impoverished children. The theme is never-ending and many of the statistics never change. Of note is the fact that Mr. Bradley declares a victory of 1%. Bill Bradley fought for some of the most invasive federal welfare reform and made new enforcement measures with the help of the Clintons. He claims that he didn’t approve of what the Clintons did because they watered his legislation down. The law wasn’t enough. It never is. It didn’t work. It never does. The politicians didn’t kill the Bradley Amendment though. They legislated over it in a pretense to make effective legislation.

In America; Bradley’s Poverty Push
By BOB HERBERT
Published: October 21, 1999

Bill Bradley, eschewing small themes in favor of a grander vision of America, will argue today, at a speech in Brooklyn, that the United States has a moral obligation to do what it can to lift as many children as possible from the punishing confines of poverty.

”We are in a time of unprecedented prosperity,” he said in an interview, ”and yet there are still nearly 14 million children who live in poverty. I think there is a broad consensus that we need to change that.”

Mr. Bradley said he planned to ”lay out a broad goal to reduce child poverty by a specific amount at a specific time.” And he will detail what he described as the initial steps, or ”down payment,” needed to move toward that goal.

The speech is scheduled for this morning at the Concord Baptist Church in Bedford-Stuyvesant. And like his proposal to make health care available to virtually all uninsured Americans, and his insistence that a Bradley administration would work constantly to break down racial barriers, his approach to child poverty appears to be far more ambitious than the terminally incremental initiatives that have plagued the country since the Clinton health plan imploded.

Mr. Bradley said his speech would address the following: ”How do we increase income for people who are poor? How do we provide child care for people who are poor? How do we generate hope in the lives of people who have had very little hope in their lives?”

This antipoverty initiative is linked both literally and symbolically to Mr. Bradley’s desire to forge a more tolerant and unified society. He noted that 36 percent of the poor children in the U.S. are white, about 30 percent are black, and 22 percent are Latino. ”What I see as a possibility,” he said, ”is a multiracial coalition that would rekindle the same kind of purposefulness as the civil rights revolution in the 1960’s.”

Most politicians have run like rabbits from that kind of talk. Grand visions, idealism, kind words about the 60’s — all have been anathema in the 90’s. But Mr. Bradley, quietly, almost serenely, has been saying the nation is ready once again to assert its better self.

”I think we still have a lot of catching up to do in terms of our commitments to each other and our commitments to children who are poor,” he said.

Mr. Bradley acknowledged that inroads against poverty had been made as the economy has improved over the past few years, but he said that was not enough.

”Poverty dropped, I think, 1 percent last year,” he said. ”I’d rather have that happen than not happen. But it is still higher than it was in 1989 and far higher than it was in 1970.”

Mr. Bradley voted against the so-called welfare reform legislation that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. ”I didn’t think the federal government should cut off its commitment to individual children who are poor,” he said, adding, ”I didn’t think the answer to the problem of children in poverty was to have a group of federal politicians take a pot of money and send it to the state politicians and say, ‘Handle this problem as best you can.’ ”

Mr. Bradley said some of the more objectionable aspects of the law had been modified, but more changes were needed.

Archive: Bradley Fights Republican "Welfare Reform"

Excepts from the NEW YORK TIMES

Published: January 14, 2000

“The issue was the Republican-drafted 1996 welfare reform bill, which eliminated the federal ”entitlement” and sent financing and responsibility for the program back to the states (along with various work requirements and time limits). Mr. Gore, according to news accounts, urged President Clinton to sign the bill when many White House aides were pushing for a veto. As a senator, Mr. Bradley voted against the bill and denounced it with quiet righteousness.

So far, Mr. Gore looks more right than Mr. Bradley: welfare rolls are down, and employment has soared, without a visible increase in suffering. In this case, it was Mr. Gore who thought big and boldly, while Mr. Bradley exhibited a cautious, Washington-style mindset.

Mr. Bradley has given several reasons for opposing the bill. First, he says he was worried about moving authority from Washington to the states.

”I don’t think the answer . . . is to take a pot of money from federal officials and send it to state officials and say, ‘Spend 80 percent of this as best you can,’ ” he said in a debate last week.

This is the classic bias of civil rights era liberals, who learned to rely on the feds, not segregationist governors. But it’s also the institutional bias of the Beltway, a bias not without its self-interested component. (If states could do the job, after all, what would people in Washington do for a living?)

President Clinton, in contrast, had some perspective on this Beltway bias. As a former governor, he was willing to accept that states can administer welfare funds in good faith.

Second, Mr. Bradley deferred to the capital’s semi-official, anointed welfare expert, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Mr. Moynihan has steered an erratic course on welfare. In the early 70’s, he was for the idea of a guaranteed income, then abandoned it. In 1988 he sponsored a relatively mild reform that in effect required a small number of welfare recipients to seek training. In 1995, he proposed a timid and incremental expansion of this initiative.

Mr. Bradley says he endorsed this incremental approach. ”Welfare needed to be reformed,” he said last summer, ”but I thought the best way to do it was to build on the act that we passed in 1988, which Senator Moynihan was a strong author of.”

Most of all, Mr. Bradley’s viewpoint was that of the liberal congressional establishment. Mr. Bradley has accused the vice president of living in a ”Washington bunker,” but if ever a group had a bunker mentality, it was these Democratic lawmakers. To them, American voters — who hated the welfare system, and avidly supported what seemed to be demagogic appeals to slash benefits — were the enemy.”


If this article is to believed, not all of Washington believes in the federal approach to child support. So why is the problem so hard to address? Do politicians care about civil rights of American citizens? If you believe the Bradley Amendment and Title V enforcement is doing Americans wrong, write your lawmaker today and tell him/her so today.

Child Support Mess: the federal Bradley Amendment

the U.S. Federal Bradley Amendment for child support is unconstitutional:

1. violation of due process under the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments
2. deprives equal protection under the law
3. violation of state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment
4. violation of natural human rights under the 9th Amendment

these are just the basic details on “the short list”.

Write your Congress and Senate to repeal Bradley!

Child Support and Political Nightmare by repealbradley

Clinton: Hiding Behind Children

If the idea of subterfuge in politics is new to you, I recommend reading this article that is loosely based on children and the use of children in politics. Unfortunately, our friend Hillary Clinton happens to be the topic. What can I say? History speaks for itself.

Whether you agree with this article or not, this article is worth your time and makes valuable points that any honest-thinking American must consider. Since this is election time, your knowledge and opinion are more important than ever. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Sweetness and Light Article

Memo: Kid Care Precursor To Hillarycare

 

From the Politico:

Battle of sound bites reaches health care

By: Martin Kady II

October 2, 2007

In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.

Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle, who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.

But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured. 

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”

The memo was sent to Politico by a Republican congressional office.

But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not dispute the intent of the 1993 memo but pointed out that Clinton herself never publicly pushed the Kids First concept and that covering children first was just one of several options laid out during the mid-1990s debate…

“Everyone knows that Clinton has had government-run health care on her to-do list for at least a decade,” said Ryan Loskarn, a spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference. “The memo helps make clear the reason Democrats have pushed SCHIP legislation that includes coverage for adults and upper-income families. This isn’t about helping poor kids. For them, it’s about making big government even bigger.” …

Not that this should surprise anyone. Hillary has always hidden behind children.

It’s one of the tactics she learned from the Communist Saul Alinsky.

From the late Barbara Olson’s great book, “Hell To Pay” (pp 113-5):

Village Socialism

What comes through in [Hillary’s] essays is the arrogant voice of the social engineer, the activist who believes that reshaping the most intimate of human relationships is as simple as rotating crops. There is more than a little foreshadowing here of Hillary’s future effort to centralize the management of Arkansas education from the governor’s office in Little Rock, and of her great socialist health care debacle in President Clinton’s first term.

In a 1978 article Hillary wrote that the federal school lunch program “became politically acceptable not because of arguments about hungry children, but because of an alliance between children’s advocates and the association of school cafeteria workers who seized the opportunity to increase its membership.” Children, she concludes, deserve similarly “competent and effective advocates.” It doesn’t seem to matter to her that the cafeteria workers were not interested in the children, but the power of their work force. Children and their real interests don’t seem nearly as important to Hillary as the power of the political lever they represent

These advocates, to the extent not motivated by high fees, would come to each case not essentially as representatives of the child-client, but as activists looking to see how this little boy, or that little girl, fits into a greater strategy to expand an entitlement or control how a government agency functions.

“The notion,” Christopher Lasch commented in his criticism of Hillary’s writings, “that children are not fully capable of speaking for themselves makes it possible for ventriloquists to speak through them and thus to disguise their own objectives as the child.”

Hillary wrote in a 1978 book review for Public Welfare, “Collective action is needed on the community, state and federal level to wrest from machines and those who profit from their use the extraordinary power they hold over us all, but particularly over children.”

The idea that power must be wrested from “machines” is peculiar, ignoring that, at bottom, Hillary’s children’s crusade is a hard-nosed exercise in expanding power in a different direction, in the direction of public interest trial lawyers with a social engineering agenda. Children are useful, just as migrant workers and the indigent elderly are useful, as tools to pry loose the controls, to get into the guts of the machinery of law and governance. Children are the rhetorical vehicles she still uses as first lady, whether pressing for national health care or to get Congress to pay UN dues

This has always been Hillary’s modus operandi. She has always used children as her sword and (especially) buckler to bully through her socialist agenda. But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Just imagine how much more information we would know about Mrs. Bill Clinton if her records from her days as First Lady were not hidden away under lock and key at the Clinton Library.

Tag Cloud