Corporate WATCHCommentary by Joe Schaeffer @Schaeff55
“I think, if anything, we understated her darkness.” These are the words of Tucker Carlson to Douglass Mackey, the American citizen facing prison for posting a meme on Twitter that dared to mock Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The American people likely will never learn the full extent of just how bought and owned the Clinton Crime Family is. The fact that Hillary seriously considered selecting Bill or Melinda Gates as her running mate seven years ago speaks volumes about the nefarious circles she inhabits.
But there is another badge of shame that should be clearly affixed to Mrs. Clinton’s “power through” pantsuit. It gets attention now and again, but never to the degree that it should, given the state of the nation today.
Hillary Clinton spent decades being the prime mover for the assault on childhood innocence.
Her sinister legacy is all around us today.
“Giving young people the autonomy to receive life-saving vaccines, regardless of their parents’ beliefs or work schedules, is essential for their physical and mental health,” radical California Democrat state Sen. Scott Wiener asserted in January 2022 while pushing a bill “to allow young people 12 and over to get vaccinated without parental consent.”
Regardless of their parents’ beliefs? It should be astonishing that an elected official anywhere in the United States could make such a statement.
This of course is the same Scott Wiener who avidly supports the monstrous evil of child transgenderism and openly seeks to sexualize the childhood experience. Other elected Democrats and progressives across the country sought to take advantage of the COVID hysteria to push the assault on parental rights.
This did not happen out of the blue. The groundwork had been laid long before. Wiener’s quote eerily echoes the exact argument made by a twenty-something Hillary Clinton in the early 1970s. Isn’t it unusual that this obscure neophyte would have had her work highlighted in nationally syndicated newspaper accounts way back then? From an Oct. 1, 1974 article:
At present, the movement for children’s rights is focusing on two general themes: extending more adult rights to children and seeking legally enforceable recognition of children’s special needs and interests.
The first approach, according to Hillary Rodham, a staff attorney for the Children’s Defense Fund and consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children, is exemplified by proposals for (1) extending all the rights of adult criminal defendants to accused delinquents, (2) empowering children to request medical care without parental consent and (3) providing a child with legal representation in any situation where his interests are affected.The New York Times issued a sympathetic explainer article in 1992 when Hillary’s views on children became a hassle during husband Bill’s first run for the White House:
In the second article, "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective," Mrs. Clinton wrote in 1979 that while newborns are obviously incompetent to present their own views "it is more difficult to prove a 12-year-old child totally incompetent, and I think impossible to presume the typical 16-year-old incompetent." Yet the law, she went on, "basically treats all these children, at their dissimilar stages of life, as incompetent and ignores psychological and social realities."
Some conservatives have interpreted that passage to mean that Mrs. Clinton would allow 12-year-olds to drag their parents into court for a judicial ruling on whether they must take out the garbage, although the article never made any such assertion.NYT snickering aside, this is the very ground Wiener stood on when seeking to undermine parental authority on vaccinations years later. In 2002, insanely woke Canada’s Justice Department specifically cited Hillary as a source in support of children’s rights. From a report titled “The Voice of the Child in Divorce, Custody and Access Proceedings”:
Another advocate of the child liberationist school, Hillary Rodham, also takes the position that children are the best judge of their own interests. In an article published in 1973 in the Harvard Education Review entitled "Children Under the Law," Rodham argues that because children have interests independent of their parents, they cannot be represented by anyone other than themselves.
She asserts that the competence of children to make their own decisions must be recognized, and that children should be treated as rights-bearing individuals rather than as members of families. Rodham advocates the reversal of the presumption of incapacity for children, the abolition of minority status, and the endowment to children of the same rights as adults.Well, that is just one interpretation of her remarks, one may say. Let us then provide an example that is more crystal clear. Hillary made her strongest statement on the matter in a 1977 article for the Yale Law Journal in which she unambiguously advocated expanding her child liberationist agenda considerably (see page 18 of pdf):
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. Children should have a right to be permitted to decide their own future if they are competent....This wasn’t mere intellectual prattle. Fast forward two decades, and here is the Clinton administration in 1996 opposing parental consent requirements for adolescents on contraception and venereal disease treatment.
Child sex trafficking is a grotesque hidden nightmare in the United States today, one fueled greatly by the scourge of massive unchecked illegal immigration. It too owes a debt to Hillary Clinton. In 1998, with future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan at point, the Clinton administration aggressively opposed legislation to prevent adults from transporting minors across state lines to avoid parental consent requirements and procure an abortion. That’s right. The administration was arguing that adults had a right to drive underage girls out of state to get abortions. The result? The Child Custody Protection Act passed the House by a vote of 276–150 but was never voted on by the Senate. Louisiana Right to Life in 2017 documented how forced abortion is a staple of the sex trafficking industry:
According to non-government U.S. sources, the average age of sex trafficking victims is 11 to 14 years old.
[Cindy] Collins [director of Pregnancy Help Slidell] said trafficked girls and women are often forced to have sex with five to 35 men a day, and many have experienced multiple pregnancies, which can result in multiple abortions, often ordered by their traffickers.
Dr. Laura Lederer, a former senior advisor on Human Trafficking at the U.S. Department of State, published a study in 2014 that surveyed 107 sex trafficking victims. The study found 55 percent of participants reported having at least one abortion, 30 percent reported multiple abortions and one female reported having 17 abortions.The assault on childhood in America today has its seeds in the radicalism and degeneracy of an American Sexual Revolution that was always artificially nurtured by moneyed elites. A quote from a 1981 New York Times article captures it best:
"'The American family is changing, and there has been a great deal more intervention into family affairs in the last 15 years than in the last 500 years," said Henry Foster, professor emeritus at New York University Law School, who taught the first children's rights course in this country in the 1960s. "But then, the family, school and religion have less authority than ever before."The darkness of Hillary Clinton has indeed been understated. She has much to answer for. The eradication of American childhood innocence should hold a place near the top of the list.
Free Press International
[Publish This Content]