Hillary Rodham Clinton: No “Friend” of the Family

Lately, in my occupation as part-time community news photographer, I’ve been increasingly assigned to cover local high school sports. Never a sport myself, I do enjoy the challenge of following the ball.  The excitement comes at the price of the flare-up of an arthritic hip.  But if I’m going to die, I figure I might as well die happy.

 

Though I don’t enjoy participating in sports, I love covering them. The faster, the better.

 

Last week’s game was a soccer match between a suburban school (they were the Away Team) and a small-city school (hereafter, the Home Team). To spare the losing team’s feelings, I won’t reveal the names of the schools, only to say that the Home Team lost.

 

I haven’t had much exposure (if you’ll excuse the photographer’s pun) to soccer. However, this game was certainly a learning experience.

 

The Away Team was athletic, strong, experienced, and well-practiced. They brought a very business-like approach to the match.  In short, they knew their stuff.  With them, came a stand full of parents, including some very lusty-voiced dads.  They expected their daughters to perform – and they did.

 

The Home Team, on the other hand. Well, what can I say?  They were not what I expected of a “city” team.  In my admittedly bigoted notions of team sports, I expected them to be tough, scrappy, street-fighters, even if they were mostly a head shorter than their opponents.

 

After five minutes of watching them play, I wondered (forgive my sarcasm) whether the Girls’ Dance Team had been called out by mistake.

 

The Away Team was all over them, the way Donald Trump was all over Hillary Clinton during last Sunday’s presidential debate. No move could the Home Team make that the Away Team didn’t cover with all due speed and intimidation.

 

The Home Teams offensive motions were, at best, awkward. I took the photos, but ultimately had to scrap them.  Their defense was always short-lived.  During the game, the referees had to call the Home Team on many fouls.  But ultimately, the one ref in particular always let them off.

 

The Away Team parents complained bitterly. Couldn’t he see that it was a foul?  However, I saw what he saw:  it wasn’t a foul, exactly; it was clumsiness.  The Home Team not only stumbled over their own feet but their opponents’ feet as well.

 

Home Team put on a pitiful offense. At one point, a Home girl had the ball and kicked it – directly at the Away Team.  No Home Team members were anywhere in the vicinity.  What on earth is she doing, I wondered?  Couldn’t she tell one color from another (the two teams shirt colors were very distinct, especially the Away Team’s.  Let’s just say that it was like missing a fire truck right in front of you, lights blaring).

 

In another play, someone kicked the ball (I don’t remember who) and it came right towards a Home Team girl.   Instead of taking advantage of this open opportunity, the girl prostrated herself face down on the astro-turf and covered her head.  The defensive Away Team girl gaped at her in astonishment.  I gaped.  In fact, everyone gaped as the ball came down with a thud next to her.

 

Someone finally woke up and took the ball. The Home Team girl got up and dusted herself off.  I can’t say I blamed her.  If I saw a soccer ball coming out of space at me like a doomsday asteroid, I’d throw myself down on the ground and say my prayers, too.  But then, I was never a member of my high school’s girls varsity soccer team, either.  If you’re going to go out on the field, you’ve got to be ready for the Doomsday Balls.

 

Needless to say, the Home Team lost. Their coach gave me a dirty look.  But hey, I’m only there to take the pictures.  I can’t help if the girls are sissy girls.  It’s okay for girls to be sissy girls, but not guys.

 

I don’t blame the Home Team, though. I certainly don’t blame the Away Team for being obviously better players.  I don’t blame their coach for teaching to play tough (this game involved a good deal of hair-pulling on both sides.  I have the pictures to prove it).  I don’t even blame the Home Team’s coach.

 

What was obvious to me was that the Home Team girls, being city girls, had been inculcated with all the multicultural diversity lectures of anti-competition: how winning isn’t everything, how even losers who throw themselves flat on the ground to avoid the ball they’re supposed to hit are winners, how everyone deserves at least a participation trophy, even when they’re photographed trailing a particularly muscular opponent, who has the ball, in terror and dismay.

 

That photo, I did send in to the paper. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand lectures.

 

During the second presidential debate, Hillary went on her tiresome tirade about the unfairness of corporations. She means businesses, too.  Only the government can save “the people” from the predations of corporate raiders.  Never mind that it’s those corporations and mid-size businesses that formerly employed the people of Jobless Jersey.

 

The absent Home Team fathers were undoubtedly working at their second or third jobs, trying to make ends meet to support their struggling families. In the wake of Jobless Jersey’s relentless Democrat tax-and-spend policies, the manufacturers fled that little city long ago.  That’s why the fathers weren’t there to cheer their hapless daughters on and give them some encouragement.

 

Thanks to Obama – and feminist role model Hillary – the name of the game is Losing. Losing companies that employ people. Losing jobs.  Losing grades.  Losing homes.  Losing faith.  I don’t know what fairy land Hillary was pointing to as Obama’s success.  But it sure isn’t here in Jobless Jersey.

 

Anyone here can tell you that not only doesn’t Obama care about families in New Jersey (especially the suburban families, whose daughters ironically beat the poor city girls); he hates them and so does Hillary.

 

Hillary points to her record as a children’s advocate. But in her Leninist view, she only means that the government should take over the parents’ role as protectors of their children.  If her pro-abortion doesn’t make it obvious that she’s anti-family, certainly her legal specialty does.

 

In Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Barbara Olson (Regnery Publishing, 1999), the author exposed Clinton’s Leninist views on bourgeoisie society and the role of the family:

 

“Between the late 1940s and late 1950s,” Olson wrote, “successive rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court extended procedural protections afforded adults (against self-incrimination, the standard of reasonable doubt) to children in juvenile court. The court also ruled in favor of limited First Amendment rights for children, allowing them to refuse to salute the flag if it offended their religious beliefs, and protecting their right to wear black arm-bands to protest the Vietnam War.

 

“But, Hillary argued, the only way to give children real power was to make their needs and interests enforceable as constitutional rights. Her solution was to use the alchemy of the law to melt all arguments in the furnace of adversarial argument, and, as she saw it, to separate the base from the pure.

 

“She made several assertions that still have the power, many years later, to cause jaws to drop – statements that reveal the contours of Hillary’s ‘better’ world.

 

“She writes: ‘The pretense that children’s issues are somehow above or beyond politics endures and is reinforced by the belief that families are private, non-political units whose interests subsume those of children.’

 

“Charting the fallacies in this one sentence is quite an undertaking,” Olson continued, “but a useful one. The world ‘pretense’ indicates that somehow there is a conspiracy at work in the treatment of children, which the rest of the sentence indicates is somehow political.

 

“In a condescending, academic way, she snidely ridicules the belief that families are ‘private, non-political units’ indicating that she does, in fact, reject the notion that the family is a traditional institution that has arisen organically and stood the test of time. In her view, families are essentially low-level public entities dedicated to explicitly political ends.

 

“If they are sub-units, what is the larger unit but the state, in its public programs and ideology?

 

“Her contemptuous tone toward the family continued throughout her paper (from a 1973 issue of the Harvard Educational Review) with her conviction that the interests of a family – its culture and beliefs – unfairly subsumed, and thus undermined, the best interests of children. Taken one way, this is Jeffersonian individualism on 1960s recreational drugs.

 

“Taken another, it is a pointed denigration of families steeped in religious tradition or a particular culture, whether they be Hassidim, evangelical Christians, or recent refugees from Kosovo.

 

“Another passage was so damning that it became the focus of damage control in the 1992 election:

 

‘’The basic principle for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. It is presumed that under the circumstances, society is doing what is best for the individuals.  Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.’

 

“John Leo’s subsequent rationalization of this passage was based on a quick dismissal of it as a piquant, but fair, description of the legal concept of dependency. But Hillary herself is not so easily disguised.  Children’s helplessness in society must be seen, she wrote, ‘as part of the organization and ideology of the political system itself.’

 

“It is not enough to say that between the give and take of powerful interests like business and labor, children get left behind. She saw a more sinister conspiracy at work – a theme which is an indelible part of her hard-drive.  She perceived that the hidden hand of ideology, a power elite that for whatever reason is actively anti-child.  In other words, the opposition is not just wrong; it is morally perverse and out to repress good and maintain the rule of the suppressive elite.

 

“Her early writings are also shaped by a radical academic Marxism and feminism. Christopher Lasch, one of the few intellectuals to take her writings seriously enough to criticize them, wrote a trenchant article on these Hillary essays in Criticism on the eve of the election.

 

“’Though Clinton does not press the point,’ Lasch writes, ‘the movement for children’s rights, as she describes it, amounts to another stage in the long struggle against patriarchy.’”

 

In an essay Clinton wrote five years later, defending the government’s right to defend children, Olson quotes her: “’Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.’”

 

That is Hillary’s idea of children’s rights, women. Today, another WikiLeak bombshell quoted one of her chiefs writing, “She doesn’t like everyday Americans.’  In context, the allusions seems to have been about using that particular phrase “everyday Americans.”

 

But her loathing of men (patriarchy) and families is unmistakable. Her antipathy for the family is completely within the context of her character and her early embrasure of Marxism and Leninism (the latter, a foul-mouthed rogue if ever there was one).

 

She is an indefatigable enemy of middle class, bourgeoisie society, Capitalism, and men. The girly-men of the GOP, like the unfortunate Home Team, are fleeing in terror of her wrath and her propaganda machine, well-known for intimidating the likes of Katherine Willey, who was a respectable widow at the time of Clinton’s impeachment.

 

The girly-men flee from the “monstrous” Trump as though he were a disease-bearing, club-wielding Goliath, political poison to anyone who enters his sphere. To his supporters, he is refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the girly-men who have repeatedly let their Conservative constituents down, election after election.

 

The girly-men dither at his all-too-earthy language about women. “Ew-ew-ew! Get away from us, you cad!” they seem to screech, even though he has apologized twice for the offensive and vulgar utterance – three times, if you count his apology to his wife, Melania.

 

The girly-men have never done us any favors. I voted for Ted Cruz in the primaries, well aware of Trump’s character (This was news to them? What girly-planet have they been painting their toe-nails on?).  But he’s our guy now.

 

He may very well live up to his promise not make such statements again. He may love beautiful women.  But after listening to him on New York radio these many years, I can vouch for the fact that Trump loves America, the Beautiful much more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on October 11, 2016 at 6:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2016/10/11/hillary-rodham-clinton-no-friend-of-the-family/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: