“Money following the child = the government following the child.”
If you see the words “school choice,” you may as well put the word “fake” in front of it.
“School choice” has long been the planned mechanism to ensnare private schools and to bring them into the fold – in order to force them to teach the very ideologies that many parents want to escape. Parents, don’t fall for it! It is called “school choice,” but this term is a trap! (and by design)
Publicly funding private schools is dangerous, for they have no elected school boards, therefore no citizen representation to ensure public monies are spent teaching what the public, as a whole in in favor of. This also explains the danger of another type of “choice”: charter schools — for they, too, use public monies without representation of the public (publicly-elected school boards, for example).
To put it simply, money following the child is really the government following the child, for when government subsidizes a program, it (the government) has the obligation to regulate it. This is not choice!
So, “school choice” wants to take a designated amount of money that the state presently provides to the public school a child attends and “give” that amount of money to the parents to “choose” which school will receive that designated money.
The assumption is that schools will have to “compete” for parents to choose to send their child to their school.
Presently, the state monies going to the schools, require the schools to implement all manner of curriculum, reporting, and programming requirements. By moving the “place” as to where the monies are directed, the state requirements will move as well, landing on each specific child.
It won’t matter “where” a child goes to school. Everything will be directly tied to each child. Each “place” of education, be it a school or parent, will be required to meet all the state requirements.
And, what about equity issues? Presently, there is an exhaustive list of risk categories that schools screen for and receive additional funding for. Wouldn’t, therefore, each child receive a different allocation of state monies, based on his varying risk designations? Wouldn’t it also be possible that children “achieving” or “exhibiting” certain aptitudes or competencies will be allocated a different level of state monies?
Would schools then not compete to acquire the children with higher allocations of state monies?
Also, a school that parents believe to be excellent doesn’t automatically have the capacity to “receive” every child whose parent would “choose” that school to send her child to. What will be the process/criteria to determine which schools take which kids? Do we not think that the state has to have a “stake” in this process?
The “money following the child” does not result in a mushrooming of private schools that are responsive and accountable to parents. There will very likely be a mushrooming of schools competing for as much government funding as they can garner. The schools/parents will be encumbered with meeting all the state curriculum, reporting, and other programming requirements.
Children become even more a piece of capital, a human resource, an asset/investment of the government. The “interest” of the state in the child is even more specifically “personalized” to each child.
Money can only be responsible to the person who earned it and from which it comes. Yes, individual taxpayer taxes fund the government. But, the government is also funded by business/corporation taxes, and all number of taxes paid by people who do not have kids or kids in school.
The funding of local schools needs to be from local sources, directly. This means local community taxes directly fund its local schools. This includes any fundraising by local schools.
If the people of a community do not think their local school is “good,” then they would vote for lower taxes to support it. Lower taxes would also allow parents to retain more of their personal income to CHOOSE to use it to send their child to a truly private school. As well, grandparents – also the beneficiaries of lower taxes – could contribute to their grandchild’s education. Local businesses could also directly support the schools of the area.
Lower taxes for everyone would allow for all persons to fund those things unique to and characteristic of those who reside in the area.
Again, history supports this. As the source of direct education funding has continuously left parents and local communities, the excellence has continued to decline.
Do you want your child’s school acting in the capacity of a medical entity AND without PARENT consent?
Do you want your child’s school NOT HELD LIABLE for administering medications?
Do you want your child’s school NOT HELD LIABLE for ACTING in any circumstances it deems to be “emergencies?”
Do you want your child’s school NOT HELD LIABLE for ACTING in a manner that may be contrary to your PARENTAL DIRECTIVES?
I think of my own son here who cannot have albuterol. He carries his own inhaler and always has, and it’s not an albuterol inhaler, but a different medication, altogether. So, imagine these people giving him albuterol, and I have zero recourse!?! Totally unacceptable.
History:
Was heard in 2020 and was actually RECOMMENDED to be PASSED by the committee. Didn’t proceed as was “stricken from calendar by Rule 1507” on February 27, 2020.
Why this is a TERRIBLE BILL:
Continues the incremental MEDICALIZATION of your neighborhood school.
Do you want your child to be receiving medical services from “the school,” and most probably WITHOUT your KNOWLEDGE or CONSENT?
Allows for stock supplies of epinephrine and albuterol at every school.
The camel’s nose under the tent?
What will be the next stock supply of medications?
Vaccinations?
Physicians or mid-level practitioners can write prescriptions “in the name of the school” and provide training to school personnel.
Physicians or mid-level practitioners shall NOT be HELD LIABLE for civil DAMAGES.
Pharmacists filling said prescriptions are NOT LIABLE for any civil DAMAGES resulting from their ADMINISTRATION.
ANY school designated person may ADMINISTER doses to ANY person at school, on school property or at a school-sponsored event.
School personnel acting in accordance with policy and in good faith shall NOT be HELD LIABLE.
“SCHOOL DESIGNATE PERSONNEL” include persons who can be trained to administer medications include SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, OFFICERS, AGENTS OR VOLUNTEERS – OUTSIDE their scope of employment.
“School designate personnel” are trained to NOTIFY PARENTS, guardians or NEXT OF KIN upon the administration of medication.
Schools may accept MONETARY GIFTS, GRANTS and DONATIONS to carry out the provisions of this bill.
Recall what I have been saying since the beginning of all of this. This “crisis” is just the opportunity to fully implement on-line “learning.”
It’s been moving in this direction for years.
It allows for the purview and responsibility of the school to extend into the family’s home.
Have you heard of the “Well Being Check Toolkit” in Tennessee?
It called for “child wellbeing checks to ensure the needs of children are being met during and after extended periods away from school. It is promoted as protecting children.”
It calls for no one (a parent) to be in the room while the student is being interviewed.
It is for ALL public, private, homeschool and home bound students.
On-line “learning” allows for the full “personalization” of education. The computer/technology is constantly analyzing student data, personalizing the education of each child/person based on the desired outcomes of those designing the system.
The president said “that families should be ‘empowered to make the decision’ about whether or not to return to school. … Trump said that school funding should go directly to students rather than school districts.” The money should follow the child. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-administration-school-reopening-guidelines
So, every child will “receive” an amount from the government for education (and, childcare, too will be included).
How is this “attached/following” money any different from the WELFARE system?
Every child receives a government handout for education/childcare?
EVERY child.
There is already a very long list of “risk” categories that result in additional funding to schools for kids falling into those “risk”: categories.
Won’t all of those categories now be specifically assigned to each individual child, resulting in differing amounts “following each child?”
How is this not a gateway to UNIVERSAL INCOME?
Why wouldn’t other “health and wellbeing” factors be added to “education?”
Why not food, housing, healthcare, etc.?
The cost of ALL education will skyrocket, just like all other places that have government supplements and regulations. Think of government healthcare, higher education costs, and on and on.
For all the “education” places that will spring up, do parents think they will automatically be able to have their child attend the place of their choosing? Won’t every physical location have a max capacity?
What will be the entrance and qualification criteria?
Who will be determining the entrance and qualification criteria?
There will be regulations, just like every other government “solution.” NOT ONE “school choice” design or pieces of legislation hasn’t included the following
The necessary accountability measures.
Determinations as to what is eligible and acceptable.
“Approved” organizations.
“Qualifying” organizations, scholarships, standards, etc.
Robust systems and administration requirements to oversee (track) it all
How does this not allow for even more re-distribution of income, re-distribution of opportunity?
Some excerpts from Brainwashing by Edward Hunter:
“Learning” and confession are inseparable from brainwashing.
Learning in this sense means only political teaching from the communist standpoint.
Confession is an integral part of the rites.
In China there are no exceptions from it for anyone, any more than for attendance at “learning” classes.
Everyone within reach of Party cadres, security police, and soldiers has to attend, even if a hermit in a cave.
The retention of his own individuality by a single person is recognized as a deadly menace by the whole monolithic structure.
“Learning begins with the study of communist literature, but soon embraces what is called criticism, self-criticism, examination, re-examination, though conclusions, and “learning by doing.”
These are obligatory in schools, factories, government bureaus, army battalions, and prisons.
… language and ideals … were taken over and given new meanings and new interpretations in accordance with communist needs.
Brainwashing is a combination of this face evangelism and quack psychiatry in a setting of false science.
The entire mechanism of brainwashing, so as to condition the patient and to indoctrinate him, … is geared to putting his mind into a fog.
This book was published in 1956.
Below, you will find an article from the Kansas City Star from August 18, 2020:
I’ve been saying it from day one of kids not returning to schools in March. The changes that kids experienced under the guise of “health” and “safety” in response to the overreaction to C19, were just the “next steps” for the direction the state was already taking education.
It’s confirmed in this article from the Kansas City Star. (See attached photos below.)
“Mastering competencies.”
Just a regurgitation of training for the workforce.
Kids don’t receive an education.
They are merely trained for some trade.
Their attitudes, values and beliefs are what is molded.
Per the article (see attached photos below):
For example, a successful pre-K through second grade student can “recognize characteristics of caring relationships and hurtful relationships and identify trusting adults” and “identify personal strengths and weaknesses.”
Mmmmm…parents send their kids to school to learn arithmetic, reading, writing, etc. Pre-K through second graders already being labeled as to their supposed strengths and weaknesses? Relationship defining? Most school materials do not emphasize a child’s parents as the primary “trusting adult.”
Success is measured by the ability of students to demonstrate “competency” in performing various actions.
If the above are just two examples of the voluminous “competencies” kids must demonstrate, how are each of these “competencies” specifically defined, and HOW will a kid be asked to DEMONSTRATE such?
In a competency approach, less emphasis is placed on the amount of time a student receives instruction.
This really means, that less emphasis is placed on actual academics.
Some Kansas districts are already dabbling in competency-based education as part of KSDE’s efforts to redesign schooling. Kansas Education Commissioner Randy Watson said the pandemic will speed up adoption of competency-based models, though he emphasized the guidance to districts won’t be mandatory.
Again, CONFIRMATION, that the “changes” happening in the schools were just “the next steps,” not a change in direction in response to C19. It won’t be “mandatory,” but it IS the eventual endpoint for schools. So how has this redesign been going for the districts already “dabbling” in it?
Some schools have actually dropped the platform because concerns of the parents. Here in Kansas, there are parents that have fought their school boards over this and some have even moved their children to other school districts! (But, with it being rolled out to more districts, there won’t be any other districts to transfer to.) They all noticed a severe drop in their child’s grades on the platform. There also have been reports of concerns of the personal data that is being shared online with this platform.
If you notice, ACADEMICS are <25% of what he says Kansans say they want for kids’ education.
He stated that it is intended for the REDESIGN to be in ALL Kansas schools via accreditation requirements.
The Commissioner is adept at inserting that this Redesign is uniquely Kansan. It is not. It is ALL training for the workforce. AND, it is NOT NEW. It has an extensive documented history. Global interests, governments, think tanks, and education “designers” have promoted the components of the Kansas Redesign for nearly a century:
Training children (NOT the same as educating them) for the workforce.
Individual Plans of Study (IPS) for EVERY child.
IPS is made capable via the technology in the classroom.
Parents are not inherently allowed to decide if they want their child to use technology.
“Testing” is not the same as “assessing.” Testing determines knowledge acquisition; insuring what you are doing is working. Assessing evaluates worth; whether a child holds acceptable values, beliefs, etc.
Assessing is made capable via the technology in the classroom.
The technology amasses millions of pieces of data on every child, and performs analytics on that data, eventuating in a determination of every child’s future.
State accreditation requires school districts to include Social and Emotional Learning (SEL).
This results in EVERY child having some type of mental health and behavioral scheme applied to him.
Parents are not inherently allowed to decide if they want their child to be socially, emotionally, mentally, or behaviorally assessed.
Workforce training and SEL are necessarily EXPENSIVE.
It takes extensive resources to determine every citizen’s future and foster a compliant citizenry.
A couple years ago, Kansas began appropriating $10 million for a K-2 Mental Health Pilot Program. Schools are focusing more on hiring psychologists, social workers, and counselors. PARENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED OR CONSENT TO SCREENING DEVICES BEING USED ON THEIR CHILD. “A key component of the pilot project is the UNIVERSAL DATABASE.”
A Kansas Superintendent of a school district implementing SEL stated:
SEL will be integrated in the curriculum; it will not be taught separately. It is not likely that a student could “opt out” of SEL curricular efforts. For to do so, would be to opt out of a majority of the curriculum.
It’s called the Medicalization of Our Schools. Presently, academics are being replaced with wrap-around mental health services and interventions into EVERY child’s personalities, values, beliefs, and dispositions. Personal behavior data is logged by teachers into data systems. Out of this comes curriculum, activities, software, and programming to change the personal qualities of children and their families in order to meet government objectives – the NEEDS you hear about in Commerce and Workforce departments and committees.
Spend some time in the Commerce committees of the legislature. You will hear much about the NEEDS of THE STATE. You will hear children (who are ultimately adult citizens) referred to as HUMAN CAPITAL. We are assessing our children’s worth to the planned economy. Every child monitored and tracked via district technology for distance learning.
Is this the education you desire for your child every day they “go to school?”
Is this – along with all the new C19 “safety” measures awaiting your child – what you want your child to have to navigate beginning in about eight weeks?
As well, contact YOUR Senator and Senate LEADERSHIP, as well as any many HOUSE LEGISLATORS that voted in support of HB 2016.
WHAT TO DO?
*Send emails.
*Leave messages.
*Some will call you back; some won’t.
*Be very clear as to the importance of NOT “balancing” or “compromising” or “reaching across the aisle” when it comes to your INHERENT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
There is NEVER a justified basis for infringement of innate individual rights as is protected by the Constitution. NO “balancing” the safety/health with the rights of individuals.
My health information is PERSONAL and PRIVATE.
NO person or interest beyond my personal doctor should have any of my health information.
NO person should be inquiring as to my whereabouts or associations. EVER.
Anything not conforming to these principles will NOT BE COMPLIED with.
Again, VOTE AGAINST this bill.
Stop insulting Kansans by voting to allow the government to infringe on our innate rights that are protected by the Constitution.
Remind your representative/senator that he SWORE to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Kansans’ ability and right to worship, freely move about, provide for themselves and their families, operate a business, and have privacy and anonymity in their associations, personal information, and doings must NOT be infringed.
HB 2346, regarding standards for school-administered vision screenings, is on the agenda for the Senate Education committee meeting today.
HB 2346 is an example of state accreditation creep.
In summary …
This bill expands the purview of local public schools beyond kids enrolled, assuming an oversight of all kids within its geographic boundaries.
This bill further expands the heavy hand of state accreditation.
This bill further expands the mission of schools well beyond academics.
This bill expands the data amassed under the “education” umbrella to include medical data.
This bill does not explicitly provide the protections that apply to medical data.
This bill places a medical service under the authority and purview of the state education board and departments.
This bill places parents in more of a subordinate position; having schools complying with government requirements more responsible for implementation, amassing data, and monitoring.
This bill diminishes parent authority.
Many people will say schools have always been doing vision and hearing screenings. Why is this a big deal?
We submit that parents are not fully aware of the impacts of this “free” screening regarding the subjugation of their fundamental rights and authority for their own children, the impacts of the data being amassed on their children, and the lack of privacy protections. This bill also progressively expands the mission and purview of government education into the medical arena. Many would argue that the unrelenting expansion of information available to the government on citizens is continuing down a dangerous course. As well, the consolidation of information from the education, medical, social, and labor areas for all practical purposes results in a government dossier on individual citizens.
This bill would expand state accreditation parameters to place more state programming in nonpublic schools and affect kids in nonpublic schools. It further expands the mission of education into the medical area. This is in keeping with decades-long goals to establish schools as the centers of communities, providing all manner of social services, physical and mental “health” services, fitting in some academics where possible.
When a parent engages the services of a medical professional to provide vision services, that appointment is protected by HIPPA and at the direction of the parent. This bill does not appear to provide the same HIPPA protections.
Based on the reading of this bill, the education institution is the main engager of the services of a vision screener, who is only required to notify the parent in the event of a referral to an ophthalmologist or optometrist. Not only is the school the main initiator of this for the child, rather than the parent, but the data regarding this is all held within education systems.
As well, yet another state level commission would be established within the State Board of Education to monitor the implementation of this act. Again, all of this bill falls under education and not health. Additionally, it establishes yet another state system to collect data on citizens. Schools will at a minimum be collecting information at the individual level. The bill does not specify any restrictions on access to this individual information, nor does it specify whether data reported will be at the individual level.
The cost of this requirement is to be born either by the nonpublic school or local board of the district where a nonpublic school student resides.
These things are not characteristics of America. They are, however, characteristics of other governments not established to ensure maximum individual privacy and freedom.
PLEASE, contact the following Senate Education Committee members and ask them to VOTE AGAINST HB2346.
HB2515, to establish the Kansas Scholarship Act, is on the agenda for the Senate Education committee meeting today.
When did it become and where is it stated in the Constitution that it is the responsibility of government to manage the workforce?
It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
It is NOT a characteristic of a LIMITED GOVERNMENT designed to protect the right and ability of Americans to enjoy lives of maximum individual freedom.
This bill embodies SOCIALIST characteristics.
This bill asks the GOVERNMENT to be involved in INFLUENCING the JOB market.
This is NOT an AMERICAN characteristic.
This bill is just one of several un-American bills that overwhelmingly passed the House. It is sponsored by a House Republican, Representative Tarwater. ONLY SIX representatives VOTED AGAINST it, four of whom were Republicans.
HB2515 provides for the annual COLLABORATION with the Department of Commerce and Kansas business and industry to identify up to ten job fields that currently have the highest need for skilled employees. This is government WORKFORCE development!!!!
Why is it desirous, much less “OK,” for the GOVERNMENT to be determining and attempting to INFLUENCE the vocations of individual citizens?
And, it comes with an estimated hefty SOCIALISTIC cost of $17.3M and the additional cost to the taxpayer to pay administrative costs.
PLEASE, contact the following Senate Education Committee members and ask them to VOTE AGAINST HB2515.
Are you being constantly bombarded with reminders of a “mental health crisis?” A crisis?
Do you view your life and that of each of your children as “individual” free human beings?
Or, do you view your and your children’s lives as being mere elements of and accountable to society’s global systems of education, health (physical and mental), family, vocation, and service?
“Mental health refers to how a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations.” Pretty much encompasses EVERY facet of our lives, doesn’t it?
“’New beliefs’ and ‘new thinking’ are KEY to the global management system. Adults as well as children MUST trade truth, facts and logical thinking for myths, UN values, and the consensus process. The masses must learn to see themselves, not as individuals, but as part of a greater whole: a group, a community, the planet. Finally, the United Nations is nearing its goals: to create a unified, socialist world made up of COMPLIANT work citizens ready to adapt to what Al Gore called a ‘wrenching transformation of society.’”[emphases added]
This all requires systems to MONITOR citizens, beginning at the earliest ages. Think Social Emotional Learning, school mental health programming, technology in the classrooms, surveying, home visits by community agencies, doctor office questions, etc..
Monitoring each child and his “appropriate” mental health progression is essential to managing the masses.
“We believe that mental health is just as important as physical health maybe even more so.”5 Donna Shalala, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society in short, new ways of living.”20 Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO
Don’t be deceived by nice sounding labels such as Healthy Start, Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities, and Healthy Cities. These and other “local” campaigns for public and mental health follow a global blueprint. They all fit into a worldwide system of “health management” and surveillance led by the World Health Organization, a UN special agency that equates faith with hate and truth with intolerance.1 The goal is conditioning the masses to willingly conform to new “universal” values, environmental guidelines, and a global management system.
Dr. David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon-General and Assistant Secretary for Health, gave a progress report at a National Healthy People Consortium in November 1998: “We have a clear blueprint in place,” he announced. “Currently, 47 states are actively involved in Healthy People 2000 and’Healthy City and Healthy Community‘ initiatives are being pursued throughout the country. Hundreds of national organizations have reviewed the Year 2000 objectives and have adopted them as their own.”
Dr. Satcher then drew the connection between Healthy Start, Healthy People, mental health and the World Health Organization:
“Every child should be given the opportunity for a healthy start… No priority yet has generated as much interest and enthusiasm as this one on mental health…” “…our efforts will be focused on maintaining a system of global health surveillance…
“Healthy People 2010 is the United States’ contribution to the World Health Organization‘s call to the nations of the world to renew their commitment to health for all.”
A NEW WAY OF THINKING
In a 1996 speech at The National Children’s Mental Health Initiative, Donna Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), said,
“From fully immunizing children by age two… to stopping domestic violence, we’re working to improve the lives of young people from the cradle to young adulthood. And a strong part of our vision is the mental health of children. We believe thatmental health is just as important as physical health …maybe even more so…” 5
As head of the DHHS, Shalala helped organize The National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network (KEN). Ponder its definition for mental health:
“Mental health refers to how a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations. It is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives …and explore choices.” 6
Do you wonder what Dr. Shalala and her network of health planners would consider good thinking? Or bad thinking? This definition doesn’t tell us. How do they want people “to look at themselves” or “explore choices”? The answer is clear when you study UNESCO’s psycho-social strategies for conforming the minds of our children to its anti-Christian world view. But without background information, these ambiguous, open-ended phrases hide the true intentions.
However, Dr. Shalala and other self-proclaimed “change agents” do tell us that the old ways “a person thinks, feels, and acts” must change. They don’t fit the new global ideology or the consensus process. According to Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the Father of OBE, the new “purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.”7 So it’s not surprising that UNESCO’s Commission on Culture and Development in its report, Our Creative Diversity, wrote that –
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.” 8
Referring to the management and monitoring of its education program, the Kansas State Board of Education made a similar statement, “QPA [Quality Performance Accreditation] is a process which demands new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs.”
“New beliefs” and “new thinking” are key to the global management system. Adults as well as children must trade truth, facts, and logical thinking for myths, UN values, and the consensus process. The masses must learn to see themselves, not as individuals, but as part of a greater whole: a group, a community, the planet. Finally, the United Nations is nearing its goal: to create a unified, socialist world made up of compliant world citizens ready to adapt to what Al Gore called “a wrenching transformation of society.” 9
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)
In 1946, the first head of WHO laid the foundation for today’s mental health program. Having implied that Christian parents indoctrinated “their defenseless children” with “poisonous certainties” that cause war and conflict, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, added,
“The problem is no longer the germ of diphtheria, but rather theattitudes of parents who are incapable of accepting and using proven knowledge…
“Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination…. Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own–guilts, fears, inferiorities–are certain to project their hates on to others… [S]uch reaction now becomes a dangerous threat to the whole world….
“We must be prepared to sacrifice much…. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently…” 10
Half a century has passed since Dr. Chisholm called for UN controls that would abolish divisive Christian “certainties”. Today, WHO commands an international networking agency that helps nations around the world change and monitor the ways their people think, choose, and act. Called Nations for Mental Health, it links each member state to the UN agenda and promises to steer each nation toward the UN goal:
“Governments will be assisted to formulate, implement, monitor and evaluate mental health policies.
“Mental health policies should enable all individuals whose mental health is disturbed or whose psychological balance may be compromised to obtain services adapted to their needs, and to promote the optimal development of the mental health of the population.” 11
To develop “the mental health of the population” and to prevent dissent and conflict from blocking progress, everyone must participate in the consensus process. Assessments for all — young and old — will show who might be “at risk” of not meeting the new mental standards for healthy communities.
For a glimpse at the vast network already in place, look at some of the mental health partners in the WHO agenda:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Nations for Mental Health
Dept. of Health and Human Services
National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network (KEN)
Healthy Cities
Healthy Communities
Healthy Families
Healthy People
Healthy Start
Children, in private as well as government schools, practice compliance by signing the Healthy Practices Pledge. It sounds innocuous at first — just promise to “brush with a fluoride toothpaste,” choose “snacks such as fruits and vegetables,” and “make our home a smoke-free zone,” then sign the pledge. But the contract is open-ended. It suggests that other “healthy” behaviors will be added later. 12 What if the next contract adds “cooperation with” and “tolerance for” something that conflicts with a child’s faith? What if a refusal to sign the contract brings ridicule and persecution? Is your child ready to follow God, even when pressured to conform?
HEALTHY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES
The Healthy Cities project was launched by WHO in the early eighties. Its web site explains its purpose: “The Healthy Cities Project helps change the ways in which individuals, communities, private and voluntary organizations and local governments think about, understand and make decisions about health.”13
Today, its guidelines are followed by leaders across America — whether they use the label “Healthy City” or not. Remember Dr. Satcher’s report at the 1998 Healthy People Consortium:
“‘Healthy City and Healthy Community‘ initiatives are being pursued throughout the country. Hundreds of national organizations… have [adopted] the Year 2000 objectives… Healthy People 2010 is the United States’ contribution to the World Health Organization‘s call to the nations of the world to renew their commitment to health for all. 14
It’s no accident that the last three words, “health for all,” sound like UNESCO’s 1990 World Conference on Education for All (EFA). The latter introduced the same six education goals President Bush announced in 1991. EFA’s counterpart in the health arena is WHO’s Health for All (HFA). And, like Goals 2000, the US branch of UNESCO’s outcome-based education system, “a Healthy City is defined in terms of process and outcome.”
WHO’s Healthy Cities program works with America’s Coalition for Healthier Cities and Communities, whose members may or may not use the WHO labels. But they must all follow the Total Quality Management process which calls for continual monitoring of change and progress. They must also agree to:
“measure our progress. “
“address the root causes of problems.”
“promote a broader definition of health that includes physical, mental, social, and spiritual dimensions.”
“focus on prevention, wellness and change incentives.”
PREVENTING CONFLICT AND MENTAL PROBLEMS
The key to prevention is continual and controlled training, monitoring, and remediation.15 As Clinton suggested at the 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crimes,
“There would almost have to be some sort of club or organization at the school, because if you think about it, your parents are still pretty well separated … We have to find a disciplined, organized way out of this so that we reach every child in an affirmative way before something bad happens.”
In the UN plan for Healthy Cities, prevention becomes a personal duty. Since the group counts more than the person, friends and neighbors would be asked to report on one another — just as in Nazi Germany.
“I challenge our young people to realize their important role in this seamless system,” said Donna Shalala. “Many times, you as friends are the strongest link in the chain of contact. You know best when your brother, your sister or your friend is facing problems…”5
President Clinton suggested the same tactic during the above hate-crimes conference: “The Justice Department will make its own hate crimes training curriculum available. A lot of hate crimes still go unreported... If a crime is unreported, that gives people an excuse to ignore it.” Then he announced a Justice Department website which invites children to tell “trusted adults” about “hateful” or exclusive attitudes they see in their relatives at home or in friends in school.
Hard to believe? It all makes sense when you consider the United Nations’ hostility toward traditional values. Ponder the words of Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO:
“The mission of UNESCO… is that of advancing… international peace and the common welfare… We have witnessed… the resurgence of nationalism, the growth offundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared… Peace… requires, in the words of the Constitution, ‘the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind’.”16
MOLDING THE MINDS OF THE MASSES
Children who refuse to conform may be considered handicapped. According to a Teacher Training Manual from the National Training Institute for Applied Behavioral Science,
“Although they appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes or beliefs.”17
Conflict must be replaced with solidarity, and — as in the USSR — everyone must be monitored for compliance with the new global beliefs and values. Such a surveillance system is at the heart of President Clinton’s Executive Order 13107 (See “Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules.” It establishes “an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties”, and its functions include:
the monitoringof the actions by the various States for their conformity with relevant treaties,
the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring purposes, and
the promotion of effective remedial mechanisms;” 18
Monitoring the progress of mental Health for All (HFA) is essential to the process of managed change. Non-compliance or dissent must be spotted, reported, and corrected before it spreads. Even “a substantial risk” of failure to conform could bring preventative correction. Remediation, conflict resolution, and other mind changing strategies include these steps:
challenge traditional values
evoke strong feelings
produce cognitive dissonance, a form of mental and moral confusion
dialogue to consensus
elicit a response that
1. demonstrates a change in attitude
2. can be measured
3.becomes part of a child’s individual electronic data file
The goal of brainwashing in the Soviet Union was to create the new “Soviet Man.”19 The UN goal is to mold global citizens so committed to the new ideology that they cannot be turned back even by the most logical arguments. UNESCO’s 1995 report, Our Creative Diversity, said it well:
“Education must inform… but it must also form, it must provide them with a sense of meaning to guide their actions…
“Education should promote ‘rational understanding of conflict, tensions, and the processes involved, provoke a critical awareness… and provide a basis for the analysis of concepts that will prevent …chauvinist and irrational explanations from being accepted.’…
“Its primary task is to provide information, explain and analyze problems and subject them to criticism… “It should cover adults as well. The principle of lifelong education should be the aim of all societies.” 20
Edward Hunter wrote the book Brainwashing, an insightful report on the experience of prisoners who survived Soviet brainwashing strategies in Communist Countries during the fifties. His warnings should shine a red light into our foolish presumptions that this process couldn’t be used in our nation. 21 Compare his words with the above UNESCO report written over four decades later:
“Even when he stands by himself, the truly indoctrinated communist must be part of the collective. He must be incapable of hearing opposing ideas and facts, no matter how convincing or how forcibly they bombard his senses. A trustworthy communist must react in an automatic manner without any force being applied.” 22
Having learned to process away facts and fear truth, these conditioned masses would resist logic and hate God’s Word. It’s natural. After all, “the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) Therefore, Jesus warned His disciples long ago, “If they persecute me, they will persecute you. for they do not know the One who sent me.” Are you and your children ready to face hostility and rejection for your faith? If so, you will delight in this promise:
“Blessed are you when men hate you exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for great is your reward in heaven.” Luke 6:22-23
For practical information about the consensus process and other psycho-social strategies, read chapter 3 in Brave New Schools. To understand the worldwide feminist movement’s goals and influence on mental health regulations, read chapter 9 of A Twist of Faith.
Endnotes:
1. See “Clinton’s War on Hate Bans Christian Values”
2. Healthy Start was summarized by Robert Holland in his article, “Statists Seek to Monitor All Newborns and Train Their Parents”, Richmond Times Dispatch (February, 1999): “Armed with backing from private foundations and the federal government, advocates of Hillary Clinton’s It-Takes-a-Village ideology are beginning to implement a plan for cradle-to-grave tracking of the newborns of first-time parents.
Part of the scheme entails sending agents into private homes to “train” parents for up to 50 visits annually per family. Expectant parents are enlisted by being asked to sign permission forms at the hospital, where amid all the excitement of a first birth they may not be aware of the implications for their privacy and parental rights.
Information that the agents collect from families will be put in a nationwide system called the Program Information Management System (PIMS), which will contain medical and psychological entries and observations on family relationships. PIMS’ tracking of newborn’s development could easily be linked with other preschool and public-school databanks currently being expanded. Eventually the information in a comprehensive, permanent record could be shared with employers when an individual applies for a job.”
17. B-Step, Teacher Training Manual, National Training Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1240 North Pitt, Suite 100, Alexandria, VA 22314 (800-777-5227). (Was in Bethel, ME) Cited by Cherrilyn Gulbrandson, 183.
18. Executive Order 13107, Section 4 (v).
19. See quotes and exerpts from Edward Hunter’s book Brainwashing at http://www.crossroad.to
20. Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO, p.169, 171.
21. See a comparison between Communist brainwashing strategies and tactics used to change values in U.S. classrooms at http://www.crossroad.to
22. Edward Hunter, Brainwashing: The story of the men who defied it (Pyramid Books, 1956), 201.
CONTACT KDHE (Phil Griffin Phillip.Griffin@ks.gov) and your state legislators (especially Representative Eplee, 163 Deer Run, Atchison, KS 66002, Phone: 913-367-2382, Email: jeplee@atchhosp.org) to PROTEST the ATTACK on YOUR PARENTAL RIGHT to act in the best interest of your own child.
Kansans Against Common Core 