Will someone PLEASE pay to read Hillary's Harvard Review article from 1973? It seems to have a connection to NAMBLA (pizzagate)

submitted ago by gumshoe_mob

Hillary Clinton achieved some acclaim for her article on children's rights, which seems to be the argument for granting children the rights as adults based on maturity and not their age. I can find no other source for it. The link is here: ---- but you have to PAY to read it. Seems to me it is eligible for public discussion and can have excerpts posted without violating copyright.

http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-43,-issue-4/herarticle/_991

This is all I can find on it, although it was supposedly a breakthrough on children's rights.

from wikipedia: ---------------- Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[59] In late 1973 her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review.[60] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[61] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but instead that courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[62] The article became frequently cited in the field.[63]

and

what hillary rodham clinton really said about children's rights and child policy https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30351/0000753.pdf

Hillary seems to have a similar position on this as NAMBLA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

wikipedia: The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors[2][3] and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

And if I am not mistaken, the two things are related by their dates. I would be curious to discover which came first, the chicken or the egg -- Hillary's article? or the formation of NAMBLA --- and maybe even see if there is a tie to Soros

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we__sure ago

This is just a crazy post.

Are you claiming Hillary Clinton hasn't been examined? That no one before has thought about looking into Hillary Clinton's writing? Do you think someone of VOAT is going to find something in her Academic career that nobody else has? You don't think that maybe some of her political opponents would have thought to download this article?

And there's no honest way to jump from her position to NAMBLA. There is zero connection between the publishing of her article and the founding of NAMBLA.

Have you actually read this? https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30351/0000753.pdf

It's pretty much an in depth discussion of her writings on Children's Law. And it's 25 years old. And the very first sentence says people are misrepresenting her views. And you here you are MISREPRESENTING HER VIEWS and citing that article. You are doing a reboot of a smear campaign from two and a half decades ago during the 1992 election. And if you read your own links, you would find there is nothing to support the smear campaign. Her legal scholarship is now accepted as mainstream law. All this has to do with the 1992 election, folks like Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson denounced her writings at the Republican convention and throughout the campaign.

They accused her of comparing marriage to slavery, and of favoring the right of children to sue their parents over such mundane matters as taking out the garbage. .... What Hillary Clinton actually believes bears little resemblance to the caricature drawn by the Republicans. .... While mildly radical at the time, Clinton's views are now accepted as standard fare by the American Bar Association. "I've read everything Hillary Clinton has written on this topic, and it's very clear she's writing about abused and neglected kids, cases where the courts are already involved," says Howard Davidson of the ABA's Center on Children and the Law. Mrs. Clinton insists that she is not trying to give children a blanket right to sue. "There is no way that anybody could fairly read the article and say I was advocating that children sue parents over taking the garbage out," she told NEWSWEEK. The article makes it clear that she would reserve the right for children who suffer from extreme cases of abuse or neglect. http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clintons-not-so-hidden-agenda-198398

You can find a background ont his controversy and several excerpts from her legal article here. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-08-23/news/1992236130_1_hillary-clinton-rights-of-children-children-best-interests

DarkMath ago

"It's pretty much an in depth discussion of her writings on Children's Law."

@gumshoe_mob if you're dumbfounded how AreWeSure could say Killary Clinton is pro-children you're not alone. I found out the best way to make sense of AreWeSure's defense of Killary is to add "middle class and above" before the word "children".

Obviously if you've seen "Clinton Cash" or read how Hillary Clinton got convicted child trafficker Laura Silsby released from jail early down in Haiti you know Killary is no fan of poor children.

Poor children of any race to Hillary are Brownstone Operation fuel and the ugly ones are "organs on the hoof" if you will.

Hope this helps. I've learned this after 6 months of AreWeSure's extreme distaste at any evidence pointing to any rich white people from Yale having committed any crime ever in the history of the universe.

:-D

waxdino ago

@AreWeSure used the "25 year smear campaign" verbiage that is a hallmark of Soros-funded, Brock-driven propaganda.

Are_we__sure ago

Ha!

I said 25 years, because this controversy is 25 years old exactly. It came up during the Republican Convention/campaign in 1992.