A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘election’

Revisiting the News: Hillary's Children Crusade

Hillary Clinton, Directing a Sweeping ‘Children’s Crusade’

Prediction 4; Integrating the government’s role in education, health and safety
By Thomas Toch

Posted 12/20/92

(see commentary below reprinted article)

kids.jpgDuring their first post-election trip to Washington in November, Bill and Hillary Clinton attended a glittering fund-raiser for the Children’s Defense Fund at the resplendent National Building Museum. But it was Mrs. Clinton, not the president-elect, who delivered the gala’s keynote address. “All of us have to recognize that we owe our children more than we have been giving to them,” she told an audience of 1,500 seated at tables decorated with little plywood replicas of schoolhouses.

In a break with Washington tradition, the Clinton administration is planning to merge its education policies into a much broader children’s agenda that also addresses the health and safety of the nation’s young. Hillary Clinton is likely to play a key role in this children’s crusade. In a two-decade career as a legal and social activist, she has pressed for a larger government role in protecting children’s rights and well-being. Once in the White House, she is likely to lead a presidential commission that will attempt to broaden and better coordinate Washington’s work on behalf of the nation’s children.

Over the years, Clinton has written a number of scholarly articles urging an expansion of children’s legal rights, a record that drew attacks at the Republican National Convention last August. In the early 1980s, she headed a commission in Arkansas that led to sweeping school reforms in the state. As first lady, she will almost certainly play a key role in shaping a children’s federal agenda that is likely to include:

Head Start. The president-elect has pledged to expand the popular federal program that supplies health screening, meals and learning activities to 622,000 disadvantaged preschoolers. With a $2.2 billion budget, Head Start serves about a third of the 3-to-5-year-olds who qualify for the program, and Bill Clinton has promised to persuade Congress to “fully fund” the program. Clinton is likely to be pressured to raise the quality of Head Start programs as well.

Health care. Prenatal care and expanded childhood immunization against smallpox and other diseases are Clinton administration priorities.

Child support enforcement. In a 1992 report, a national commission urged tough sanctions against “deadbeat dads,” fathers who fail to make required payments to support children they don’t live with. The commission’s recommendations are likely to be drafted into legislation in 1993.

Child welfare. George Bush in 1992 vetoed a $2.3 billion bill to both improve and find alternatives to the nation’s costly and often poorly performing foster care system. Children’s advocates expect Clinton to sign the bill in 1993.

Family leave. Bush twice vetoed legislation granting employees the opportunity to take unpaid leave to care for newborns and sick family members. Clinton is expected to sign the legislation early in 1993.

School reform. The 103rd Congress must reauthorize more than 50 federal school programs funded at $9.2 billion in fiscal 1992. The Clinton administration is likely to press for national exams, public-school choice and, in particular, substantial reform in the $7 billion Chapter 1 program for disadvantaged students. Its likely proposals include targeting funds to schools with the highest concentrations of impoverished students, slashing the program’s red tape and instituting higher academic standards and sanctions for schools that perform poorly.

Hillary Clinton has been involved since the early 1970s with the Children’s Defense Fund, both as a lawyer and a member of the board. The nomination of University of Wisconsin Chancellor Donna Shalala, the current chair of the advocacy group, as Bill Clinton’s secretary of health and human services sends a clear signal of the administration’s desire to pay close and immediate attention to the needs of the nation’s disadvantaged kids.

Fully 14 million American children, or 1 in 5 under the age of 18, live in poverty.

This story appears in the December 28, 1992 print edition of U.S. News & World Report
U.S. News & World Report

My thanks to U.S. News & World Report for the archived article. You will notice that little has changed since the 80s and 90s except that poverty and all the things that politicians were “trying to repair” have not worked. Oppressive and detailed regulations have compounded all the problems that Democrats and the Clinton Administration claimed to want to fix. When you look at old articles from the 1980s, it is almost as if the same pathetic figures are being recycled to prove the same old points for problems that never see any form of resolution. It is time to wise up to these wiseacres and get opponents of American freedom out of office. ~ E. M.

liberty-internet.jpg

Thank you for your support. Please write your lawmaker and tell them to REPEAL BRADLEY and unconstitutional Title V law.

A Fair Role for Fathers?

Boston Globe Editorial on Divorce and Parenting

“Charles Kindregan, a law professor at Suffolk University, soundly argues that a presumption of joint legal and physical custody could handcuff judges who should be free to consider the best interests of children on a case-by-case basis. ‘You don’t need a presumption when you have facts,’ Kindregan says. The relevant facts include children’s age, temperament, emotional development, and medical needs, as well as how parents get along and how far apart parents live from each other. A judge looking at an infant will have to make very different decisions than a judge looking at a teenage boy.”

translation:
“Dad can see the infant or young child an hour or two a week if mom allows it. Men don’t have the temperament for children. We might give good old dad a chance when his kid is a teenager. The kid will already be damaged from growing up without a father and the father-child relationship may be strained or non-existence from limited contact and negative talk from the mother. It’s okay for dad to spend time with the kid as long as they live within 1,000 miles of each and mom is not unhappy about the visits.”

The Globe editorial and the expert it quotes are out in left field. There is absolutely no reason why a father should be kept away from his baby or toddler under normal circumstances. This is the kind of discrimination that men deal with every day in America. If courts want to take rights away from fathers, then fathers have the right to be free. Naturally, you won’t see the courts go in that direction. Changes must be made. Why?

Fathers are not indentured slaves to an ex-wife in the name of children. Yet, the popularity of unconstitutional federal law among divorced mothers and feminists has brought this attitude of disdain towards men to its current reality. The Bradley Amendment and all unconstitutional Title V law must be repealed. This should be a Presidential election issue!

Hillary Clinton: the federal Bradley Amendment

This video features closing video from the Democratic debate on CNN from 2/20/2008. The federal Bradley Amendment violates the Constitution of the United States. Bill and Hillary Clinton were and are chief promoters and enforcers of this legislation. They don’t get it. As politicians, they have violated the trust of Americans, as well as the human and civil rights of millions of Americans without apology in the name of children. Repeal the Bradley Amendment.

New Video on Bradley Amendment

For a quick review of the Bradley Amendment this website has most of what you need.

For a quick summary and poll, visit my Squidoo link!

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.

Clinton and Poverty: "Child Support Reform"

evil-axis.jpg

Hillary Clinton has launched a vision that she calls “Youth Opportunity Agenda”. Within the powerful agenda is contained the seeds for unprecedented federal spending and power. As part of this vision, Ms. Clinton seeks to “restore funding for child support enforcement to make sure that fathers do their part to support their children. But she will also reward responsible fatherhood by ensuring that every dollar of child support payments directly benefits children and expanding the EITC to give fathers more economic opportunities to do right by their kids.

On the surface, what Ms. Clinton proposes appears to be visionary. She desires to restore and enforce, to ensure and to expand. That is language for spending more money. “Hillary believes that fathers who have the financial resources must pay their full and fair share of child support.” The text reasons, “Child support payments lift more than one million children out of poverty each year and enable 300,000 families to leave TANF rolls. Child support payments can represent half of these men’s income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.” The statement made by the campaign is a myth. Then, Ms. Clinton proposes to reverse “deep cuts” to child support enforcement that we made through “the Bush Administration”. She projects that $11 billion will be lost over the next 10 years because of these “cuts”. She will make certain that states and counties have the resources necessary for collection through more federal funding. Ms. Clinton will also “encourage states to take more realistic and cooperative approaches to managing arrears, so that fathers leaving prison are not immediately saddled with unrealistic payment obligations.” Could this also be for parents that are arrested for non-payment of child support through the federal Bradley Amendment in the first place?

Ms. Clinton’s policy also states that she wants to ensure that every dollar of child support goes to the children through “incentives” and “support”, doubtless through more funding with more rules and guidelines. The federal government currently maintains that every dollar of child support is going to child support right now. So what’s up with this need for incentives? The dirty secret is that 4% of child support gets lost in the money stream through mismanagement of the system even though every dollar is sent for the children.

She holds that her reform will increase child support payments and result in administrative savings. Do you smell more power and larger federal government without results? Honesty would dictate that she address the current money mismanagement in the system. Instead, she has chosen to pretend the problem does not exist.

Ms. Clinton proposes to “make work pay for responsible fathers by expanding the EITC.” EITC is the “Earned Income Tax Credit” for low-income workers and families. Ms. Clinton sees the EITC as “one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the U.S.” Have any of you seen this tax credit lift anyone out of poverty or does it simply support more of the same? Ms. Clinton suggests tripling “the size of the benefit for single workers, providing 4 million people with a tax cut averaging $750.” Does a $750 tax rebate eliminate poverty? For whom would this eliminate poverty? This sounds more like creative social engineering and promotion for single parents rather than promoting the honesty of marriage.

Ms. Clinton expects the cost to top out at $5 billion a year, financed by the “carried interest loophole” which allows some Wall Street investment managers to pay a lower tax rate on their earned income than middle class workers. How many Wall Street investment managers does the United States have? Only Ms. Clinton knows, but I think you know. This is clearly a smoke and mirrors approach to funding. The savings will be so great that she says that she will generously dedicate a portion of the savings to improve government efficiency. Does this sound real to you? Where will she improve spending? She says that she will improve government efficiency by mandating a freeze on expenses, reducing a vehicle fleet and managing surplus property. What money is needed for that? She proposes to eliminate improper federal payments. What improper federal payments will Ms. Clinton eliminate that we don’t know about and who decides what those are?

Currently the federal enforcement of the Bradley Amendment for child support runs at $6 billion yearly with 55% of child support being paid and collected. Ms. Clinton proposes to add another $5 billion to that sum every year with her plan. The $11 billion “saved in reversing budget cuts over a decade”, if those cuts exist, would result in additional funding of roughly $1 billion a year. This would lift federal funding through enforcement of child support through the Bradley Amendment from $6 billion to $12 billion. Additional state expenses to meet federal Bradley requirements are still outstanding and remain the responsibility of each state. There is no free money. This projected $12 billion is a federal expense that did not exist before 1994. Before 1994, there was no federal funding for child support collection. Why does this matter?

What Ms. Clinton is not telling you is that she is intent on reforming the Bradley Amendment federal enforcement laws that were enacted beginning in 1993. Who created those laws to begin with? Hillary Clinton, Donna Shalala and other feminists rose to the challenge to beat out “deadbeat dads” no matter what the cost. Through federal legislation, they removed state rights assigned by the Constitution and worked to exercise control over the rights of Americans that had never been exercised before. They pulled it off without a hitch because of public sentiment that they drummed up as they promised welfare reform and poverty resolution. The democratic Bradley Amendment had sat on the law books since 1986 without the capability of enforcement. Hillary’s crew of feminists was the enforcement agency for the Bradley Amendment. Opportunity was transformed into power. Bill and Hillary are, in theory, single-handedly responsible for federal child support enforcement as it exists today and have mangled the Constitution and the rights of Americans to do it. The really fascinating part of the whole drama is that none of the legislation has worked. Costs are up. Court orders are up. Welfare has not been reduced as promised. Poverty has not decreased. Child support collections are down. Hillary aims to fix the situation with more invasive methods. Are you prepared for that reality?

The Bradley Amendment must be repealed to restore order in the United States of America. Ms. Clinton is preparing to elevate Bradley Amendment enforcement and reform to new heights. The plans and proposals are real. Hillary Clinton is here to rule your world. Hail to the King.

 

Where Does Your Candidate Stand on Child Support?

Many Americans believe that 2008 will be the most important election of their lifetimes. Whether this is true or not, the state of affairs in this country makes your electorial voice is very important.
Campaign Issues 2008
The campaign issues website is for voters more interested in issues than in personalities and political drama. This is an opportunity to check out your candidates as you decide what is important to you. I would like to see the Bradley Amendment in lights as a relevant topic for the election. If there is enough public interest, the politicians will be unable to avoid the topic. Consider fighting for restoring states rights and civil rights in child support law by making your voice known. Demand your rights and create change for the better.

 

Tag Cloud