The journey from there to here

To begin with, I need to apologize for the fact that I will be unable to copy/paste references for this article due to problems either with the library computer I am using or JU's database; I'm really not sure which. But the source material for much of what I am stating in this article can be found in my previous article "Training Families" and the Leftist Agenda.

There is a push, spearheaded by Senator Hillary Clinton (Please remember, this is a woman often toted as the 2008 Democrat frontrunner, and these are primary reasons why you should NOT vote for her) to mandate home visits for all new families. It's not exclusive to her vision; however, the source article refers to an initiative empanelled by George H.W. Bush in 1991 that would provide for "universal voluntary" home visits ("universal" and "voluntary", for the record, are two mutually exclusive terms).

One of the problems I have with this, aside from the obvious fact that it would effectively plunge the US Government into bankruptcy by severely increasing the need for social workers as well as the resultant cost, is that there is quite clearly an assumption of guilt on the part of every American that chooses to have a child. A social worker, who is hardly an objective worker, and rarely well trained (and will be even less trained as the demand rises for more and more workers), would be able to subject every family to scrutiny as to their religious and lifestyle choices, their housing choices, their values and morals, and even their reading selection. I highly doubt that a family with "The Turner Diaries" or anything by George Lincoln Rockwell would NOT be subject to additional scrutiny.

In the world envisioned by these "visionaries", it will be virtually impossible for a family to live unmolested by governmental interference without retaining an attorney. A family lawyer will quickly become as ubiquitous as auto and health insurance are for many of us, and the end result would be a de facto ban on poor families having and retaining their children.

Sure, opponents will argue that these arguments are the rantings of an extremist. But, I must point out, the world I am describing has been advanced and put forth by a sitting member of the US Senate; the person that many pundits believe will be the DNC's next candidate for president. It is up to us as Americans to know what this woman is about and precisely why she should NEVER be allowed at the helm of this great nation.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 07, 2005
..
on Jul 07, 2005
Why would anybody want another Clinton in office?
on Jul 07, 2005

Island,

I wonder the same thing myself, but there's a whole lot of Americans pushing to get her into office! Frankly, if the DNC nominates her in 2008, I guarantee I will vote for the Republican candidate...while I'm fiercely Libertarian, the importance of keeping Hillary OUT of the White House FAR overrides the importance of advancing my party's cause.

Dick Morris said it best when he stated that Bill Clinton was a moderate who was a liberal when the situation called for it; while Hillary is a far left liberal who masquerades as a moderate to win votes. The possibility of this woman holding the office of the presidency (especially if Bill ever gets the UN secretary general's position, as he's attempting to do) truly frightens me.

on Jul 07, 2005
We don't trust people to operate an automobile. Instead, we assume they can't until they've gone through some mandatory training and testing. And if they fail the test, they don't get our permission to operate an automobile.

Every child brought into a community is a drain on that community's limited resources. Personally, I would like to see more community oversight of things like this. Maybe more people would think things through a little more, and plan a little better, if they knew they'd have to answer to their neighbors for how their family affects the neighborhood.

I say this not because I assume that all parents (or prospective parents) are guilty until proven innocent, but because your family decisions will affect my life, and I'd like to have some say in that, if you don't mind.
on Jul 07, 2005

stute,

YES, I DO MIND! Your values are not my values, and you do NOT have the constitutional right to send your "overseers" into my house to enforce my values.

I thank you for your honest response, but frankly, your response goes a long way to show why the liberals, NOT the conservatives, should be associated with the "nazi" mindset. Your response shows a systematic and blatant disrespect for the Bill of Rights, as well as an automatic prejudice against the poor, who will not have the money to afford the attorneys needed to fight the overreach of you and those who hold to your mindset.

Believe as you will, but please, give the word "liberal" back to those who DO believe in liberty. There's nothing "liberal" about making citizens slaves to the state.

on Jul 07, 2005
and, for the record, stute, no, my children are NOT a "drain on the community's resources". You aren't spending money to raise them, so, get the hell out of my house, ok?
on Jul 07, 2005
Gid, I'm a conservative.

Also, I'm never in favor of Constitutional overreach. But there are public and private entities at all levels of our society dedicated to opposing things like overreach and oppression of the poor, from the checks and balances of our triune government to the ACLU.

But speaking of the poor, it's exactly the poor families that impose the greatest burden on their community's resources. Making babies is a choice. Sometimes, it's a bad choice. When it's a bad choice, the community pays the price, but has no way to hold the parent accountable for the bad choice they've forced on their neighbors.

Want a kid but can't afford one? Great! Have one anyway, and your better-off neighbors will pay to support it. And the beauty part is this: [Ithere's nothing your neighbors can do about it!

I'm pretty sure that Hillary Clinton's solution isn't the best one, but to be honest, I've been wanting a public debate on this topic for a long time.

Also, how is this different from the mandatory state-slavery we impose on automobile operators?
on Jul 07, 2005
And for the record, I'm sorry for implying that your kids, specifically, were a drain on anything. I had used the rhetorical "you", not the personal "you". My apologies for the offense.

If a familiy is willing and able to make the sacrifices necessary to support themselves without additional help from the community, fine. But if they're not, then my taxes pay their way--in spite of the fact that if they'd come to me and asked "hey, we'd like to have some kids; would you mind supporting them?", my answer would've been "hell no and get out of my town, you idiots".
on Jul 07, 2005

stute,

In the case of families that insist on government entitlements, you're absolutely RIGHT! But, not every poor family in America receives those entitlements, and we have to stop assuming that they do (in the case of entitlements, yes, we have a responsibility to see that the money is wisely spent...no question there). Even as applies to public schooling, I would agree to a limited extent...but again, not all of us receive government entitlements to educate our children.

I don't agree with a lot of the automobile laws, either...but using one form of oppression to justify another is hardly a strong argument. I see something quite wrong, though, with comparing my children to Ford Tempos, however.

You may be a conservative, stute, but your response didn't show it. I am extremely worried that you and others are hopping on board with the idea of supporting a police state. What's next? Mandatory sterilization for all those parents we deem "unfit" to parent?

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that people who choose to have children should bear the responsibility of raising them. But to punish those parents who ARE raising their children properly at the expense of those who aren't is not reasonable, any way you slice it.

As a side note on government entitlements, though: as a family who tries to stay off of them, we find a good deal of pressure from community idiots, and, in some cases, yes, social workers, who try to MANDATE our usage of entitlements.

When and if I am finally in a position to be able to tell our whole story, stute, perhaps you will understand. Until then, please take my word for it that this is not only not a good idea, it is, in fact a HORRIBLE idea, and one that all freedom loving citizens should fight against.

on Jul 07, 2005
Thanks, Gid. I'll take your arguments into consideration, that this is a bad idea for reasons I don't quite understand (yet).

In the mean time, I'm not trying to use one oppression to justify another. Rather, I'm trying to point out that communities always impose restrictions and safeguards on individual activities that have a community impact. Not all of these restrictions equal oppression.

What solution would you propose, for your community to address the burden that irrespsonsible families place on you and your neighbors?
on Jul 07, 2005
In the mean time, I'm not trying to use one oppression to justify another. Rather, I'm trying to point out that communities always impose restrictions and safeguards on individual activities that have a community impact. Not all of these restrictions equal oppression.

What solution would you propose, for your community to address the burden that irrespsonsible families place on you and your neighbors?


Stute, this idea is NOT just about the poor! "Everyone" that chooses to have a child will be subject to the same scrutiny. So do you like the idea of jumping through government hoops if you and your wife decide to have a child?
on Jul 08, 2005
miler, as I said earlier, I'm pretty sure Hillary's idea isn't the best way to approach this problem. But I still think it's an interesting idea, and worth considering.

But still, I wouldn't restrict it to the poor. In fact, my main objection to Hillary's plan isn't who it targets (everybody), but rather who is doing the targetting: the Federal Government. Personally, this seems like the kind of thing that would be done best--if at all--at the local community level.

And yes, if my local community were to approach me and my wife and say "we heard you were thinking of having some kids; would you mind discussing the community impact, and your perception of your responsibilities and resources, and the values you will bring to parenting with us?", I'd say yes, sure, no problem, come on in. Why? Because I care about my community, and have a healthy respect for my neighbors' concerns.

You see, I fully recognize that you don't have to be poor to be a bad parent, and to raise children who end up being a burden on society. So see no reason to restrict this idea (or other, similar ideas) to the poor only.

Anyway, since you quoted my question, maybe you'd like to answer it: "What solution do you propose, drmiler, for your community to address the burden that irresponsible families (regardless of income level) place on you and your neighbors?"
on Jul 08, 2005
I would rather see hanoijohn as president than shrillery, at least with hanoijohn you know you are getting a peice of shit, while shrillery is trying hard as she can to lie her way to high office.
on Jul 08, 2005
would rather see hanoijohn as president than shrillery, at least with hanoijohn you know you are getting a peice of shit, while shrillery is trying hard as she can to lie her way to high office


No, you would not. Evil is as evil does. One evil is as bad as the other. Kerry has a core, twisted and perverted as it is. Hillary has none.
on Jul 10, 2005
Anyway, since you quoted my question, maybe you'd like to answer it: "What solution do you propose, drmiler, for your community to address the burden that irresponsible families (regardless of income level) place on you and your neighbors?"


Absolutely NONE unless the ones they're looking at are on "public" assistance! Those that are on public assistance are "already" using the communities resources and should be at least looked at. What I choose to do or NOT do is (as far as I'm concerned) NONE of the communities business!
2 Pages1 2