Editorials



The opinions in this editorial do not necessarily reflect the opinions of those representing NHELD.

 

So What Has Your Government Been Doing Lately?

By Judy Aron

I have heard it said that once you bring the name of Hitler into an argument that you have lost the argument. The notion is that his regime was so horrible and so extreme, that one could never make an accurate comparison. I am sorry, but I disagree with that theory. I do believe that those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Hitler's government serves us well as an example of how not to do things. Bad repressive government is always bad repressive government, no matter who is at the helm.

Coming from a family comprised of some Holocaust survivors, I have heard repeatedly in my life what warning signs to look for and how easily people can be propagandized, as well as how easily government can be taken over and people can be suppressed.

That being said, some of the laws coming out of Congress and our States are getting pretty scary. Some have evolved over the course of many administrations, some come as a result of legislators who are really clueless, and others come from a purposeful agenda. Sometimes that agenda may come from corporate America, as evidenced by heavy campaign financing and lobbying of their interests. I am not talking about any kind of conspiracy to enslave us all, but perhaps it is time for our legislators to re-read our Constitution and stop relying on the judiciary to tell them when something is wrong, unethical, or unconstitutional. Unfortunately, people are asleep enough and busy dealing with their own problems that they don't have time to see what's going on, or even check up on the people they voted for, if they voted at all.

It is necessary to recognize that there are very real socialist and fascist factions working in our government, and they can take a miserable idea and make it look like a really good one. It's easy enough to build a socialist infrastructure if you lay the groundwork under the guise of helping those in need. After all, programs designed to help the sick and needy could benefit us all, right? Propaganda done well can push any agenda, especially if there is money behind it. Taking a look at even a few things like eminent domain, education, immigration, surveillance, and censorship, and a picture begins to unfold that is not very pretty, and it certainly doesn't come close to what our founding fathers intended.

Just examining education and its relation to healthcare, we ought to be very mindful of the path we are traveling in this country. As we speak, legislatures around the country are considering legislation
1. that establishes health center and clinics in our schools
2. that deals with "early intervention" of mental health issues of children - utilizing screening programs for all
3. that deals with "school readiness" and universal pre-school, which is government run/funded education and institutionalization of 3 and 4 year olds
4. that places more psychologists, therapists and other "psych" professionals in our schools
5. that removes certain authority and rights of parents
6. that places more government mandates on education

On top of this, the federal government is exercising the power of the purse to mandate how education should be run overall.

Let's take a look at some examples based on a paper describing the Third Reich http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/r/rogow.sally//hitlers-unwanted-children

"Even during the war, there was so much unrest and so many appeals that in 1941, Hitler intervened with an edict that prohibited parents from bringing charges against hospitals and asylums."

Are we not seeing "middle of the night legislation" inserted to protect pharmaceutical companies and institutions from lawsuits for autism," etc? Parents are being forced to medicate their kids in some cases, and then they can't turn around and do anything when the drugs damage their child.

"Nazi bioscience and racialism were woven into all aspects of the social, health, and educational policies."

Are we not seeing states like Illinois instituting Social/Emotional Learning Standards for the purpose of having children be "school ready"? Who decides these Social/Emotional Learning Standards? What studies are they based on? Is anyone interested in the conflict of interest and questionable ethics of these studies, some of which were funded by pharmaceutical companies?

"In 1934, 181 Genetic Health courts and appellate Genetic Health Courts were created for the sole purpose of enforcing Nazi health laws and decrees (Peukert, 1987). These courts were attached to local civil courts and presided over by two physicians and a lawyer. All physicians were required to register every case of genetic pathology with the courts and failure to do so was punishable. The reports were filed in specially created data banks (Burleigh, 1994). Public health officials, teachers, and social workers were also required to report children suspected of having a disability or emotional problem. The search for people with hereditary illnesses was relentless; every large institution became a regional catchment area and sent officials to the homes of every person reported to have a hereditary illness (Burleigh, 1994). "

Does the program/mandate of Child Find fit this description? The inter-agency networking of government entities per the New Freedom Commission, and No Child Left Behind legislation offers up some very unsavory comparisons here. Schools are implementing screening tools like Wested, and TeenScreen and a host of other programs to identify kids with problems.. even if they don't really have one. And no one seems to take notice that these programs were funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry in order to get more customers and sell more medication. Additionally, databases are being set up to keep track of information. Parents are being coerced into putting their children into treatment. Some lose custody and their children become wards of the state.

"Public health officials, responsible for enforcing the institutionalization of children with disabilities, persuaded dubious parents with promises that their children would receive the most advanced and expert therapy on open wards (Heiniansberg and Schmidt, 1993). Parents who refused to put their children into institutions were accused by these same officials of neglecting and depriving their children of needed treatment. Persistent refusal often resulted in threats; parents were told that if they did not institutionalize their children they would lose their guardianship rights (Burleigh, 1994). Single mothers who refused to part with their children found themselves assigned to contractual labor, which in the end, forced them to surrender their children (Freidlander, 1994)."

Parental rights and guardianship have been removed from many parents by the courts in this country for similar charges. IDEA legislation allows the school districts and State departments of Children and Family Services to coerce parents into treating children, despite clauses regarding parental consent. In this country a parent does not necessarily have the last word, and they are usually dragged through court in "due process hearings" with little financial resources behind them to sustain them through relentless charges. Of course school districts and state agencies have enormous financial resources, your tax dollar, at their disposal to pay for ongoing legal fees. Parents will most likely succumb to school and DCF demands and hope for the best for their child. Unfortunately that doesn't always happen and children end up drugged, institutionalized, or both. We are constantly reminded that the "experts" know best.

"Under the Nazis schools were a primary target for control and their administration was
placed in the hands of the party faithful. By 1938, the German school system was brought under the total control of the central government and removed from the jurisdiction of the individual states or Lander (Huebner, 1962). "

One cannot ignore No Child Left Behind and the pervasiveness of federal mandates on state and local schools. We may say that we still have states rights in this country, but what state is willing to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Title 1 money and not institute the federal mandates? There is no freedom here for states as long as they are being coerced and bribed to put federal mandates in place. Now states are so sucked into the flow of money that they cannot give it up even if they wanted to without an extreme cut in their operations. They have become slaves to the federal government.

"Comprehensive schools that included classes for children with learning problems were closed, parent-teacher associations were made powerless, corporal punishment was reintroduced and progressive teaching methods were discouraged. Early childhood and kindergarten systems were also brought under government control and church and privately sponsored kindergartens were banned. The Froebel Association which pioneered early childhood education in Germany was forced to disband (Tietze, Rossback and Ufemann, 1989). It was a common sight to see three year olds marching and waving flags in a military parade. "

Universal preschool and efforts to have state sponsored, taxpayer funded, public education for 3 and 4 year olds, in addition to state funded birth to three programs, are now being pushed nationally. You might be interested as to what is included in the curriculum planned for these kids. It isn't just crayon drawings and how to hold a scissor. While we may not be banning church and privately sponsored programs, we will be mandating that they possess certain credentials through the National Association for the Education of Young Children. The fact that the state is feeding, and in some instances clothing and caring for these kids the majority of the day, is of concern. Where is parental control and responsibility? Why is the state becoming so involved in taking care of our young? Have we really embraced outsourcing our parenting to the government?

Oh yeah, maybe they are unfounded comparisons and way too extreme, or maybe they aren't, but lets check the roadmap and see where we are headed. Are legislators looking to pass laws based on their campaign contributions or because of ideology, or because of a vision of how things should work? Are we passing laws to control people, or help people? Perhaps we are passing laws to control people under the guise of helping them. Should we be passing these kinds of laws at all? When is government "help" voluntarily received and when is it forced upon us? Should we allow laws that will dictate screening, recording and even perhaps micro-chipping of our population? How does that measure up to what our founders intended in the name of freedom? You decide.