- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
- IN THIS SECTION
July 30, 2008
Exclusive: The Shadow of Big Brother Enters the Home?
We have been watching government become more and more involved in the private lives of our citizens, sticking its intrusive nose into what used to be the private domain of parents. Well, brace yourselves for yet another such intrusion, and a very sinister one at that.
Big Brother Wants To Be Your Father and Mother
It is reported that The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.
The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.
The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.
As is often the case, these two bills appear, at first blush, to be helpful and positive moves designed to protect children and assist families who need help raising those kids. However, first appearances, especially when it comes to legislation, can be very deceiving.
Concerns We Should All Have
Various experts on many levels have voiced concerns over these two bills on three main grounds. First, the wording of the bills allows much discretion as to how they are implemented and on what basis it is determined that a particular family should be targeted for that implementation. Such vague ground allows for abuse by the government and the authorities given the power and discretion to implement these measures.
For example, experts cite that “evaluation” can end up meaning all kinds of things way beyond the original intended purpose. So-called mental health and family experts can come into the home and begin analyzing all sorts of things regarding how kids are being raised and apply a myriad of subjective determinations regarding the adequacy of parental care and other things in the name of these measures.
Second, many of these experts are also concerned regarding the possibility that the implementation of these measures will spill into gray areas the bill was not initially designed to target. Who is to say that, slowly and methodically, there will be a slippery slope of sorts by which this legislation will creep into areas beyond the initial situations they were intended to be involved in? Will we eventually see the interpretation of what families and situations this legislation should be implemented in expand to include families and households who greatest sin is not conforming to some governmental wish list or questionable measure?
Last, a number of observers cite these measures as yet another example of the government trumping parental rights. As the legislation is presently designed, parents who refuse to take part will have that fact entered in records, and once parents do agree to take part, they will become relegated observers without much say in how a number of determinations and procedures are implemented which directly impact on their own children and households.
Government Incompetence Seeks New Ground
One expert cites the ample example of school curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child’s academic development; like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism and other things which really have no bearing one whether or not Johnny learns to read.
Observers point out that there is clear evidence of the government’s incompetence in developing and maintaining a decent public education system. Despite their claims to the contrary, much of the evidence and experience points to the fact that governmental swipes at education only give us mostly disastrous schools, incompetent and corrupt management of those schools and a pathetic inability to deal with the legion of dysfunctional situations resulting from those schools.
Many also point out that, if anything, much public education has become more indoctrination in liberal and secular issues and positions than traditional, solid instruction on how to write, read and add. These measures simply extend the indoctrination, incompetence and liberal spin into the home under the pretext of concern over families and protection of children.
In a nutshell, with the emphasis on “nut”, these measures seek to allow the federal government to force itself into the home under the pretext of protecting children while, in fact, it is merely seeking to more effectively indoctrinate even younger and more vulnerable kids.
To tie a nice bow around the entire sinister effort, we are seeing the expansion of the federal government into education and areas when there is really no constitutional provision for it to do so.
Conclusion
Beware governments bearing gifts - and The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are no exceptions.
Both measures pretend to be aimed at protecting children from abuse and enriching them with greater education opportunities. Instead, many experts warn that these measures are merely the latest and equally dangerous attempts by the federal government to “protect” children from the influence of their own parents and “enrich” them with the indoctrination and control of that same establishment’s perception, interpretation and spin of reality, be it political, social or otherwise.
As parents and American citizens, we should contact our representatives with our concerns.
If you think Big Brother is dangerous when he wants to be our brother, imagine how much more dangerous he becomes when he aims to be our parent as well.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is a college professor who holds a law degree from New York University. Write him at gbgmyarticles@yahoo.com.
Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)
| Print This E-mail This |
|
