Corrupt Government

BELIEFS V FACTS ON CHILD PROTECTION


HOW THE GOVERNMENT IS USING SOCIAL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION IN POOR COMMUNITIES


By Jan Smith

Words. It is all about words that create images and emotions to provoke some type of response leading to action. Advertisers use underhanded and enticing strategies continuously in the marketplace manipulating the consumer into believing that the presented offerings are a “must have.” Once purchased, the consumer may very quickly realize that what they bought and what was advertised are two different things. In sales, the enticement is often referred to as a carrot and the same principle is applied with convincing the general public that the current child protection system is in the “best interest” of the children. The carrot is supposed child safety using images of suffering children eliciting fear and the natural need to protect them from harm. Is the system set up protecting or exploiting children and now that 30 years have gone by since CAPTA, what are the results? In order to understand what we are experiencing now, it is critical to know what was happening that created this trend. Many factors enter into the picture including and not limited to government research into mind control and social construction theories. Psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, historians, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies all participated in discussions and experiments regarding individual and community control during the time that child protection federal public policy was being requested.

As early as the 50s, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company began handing out LSD like it was candy to unsuspecting victims to determine its ability to get information out of resistant people and whether it was reliable in mind control. Many doctors were guilty of putting implants in their client’s brains attempting to manipulate emotions then tracking them unbeknownst to them. Nobody was immune to that era’s determination to commit human rights violations to include military personnel, children, and mentally handicapped people.

Yale and Harvard doctors participated and set up top secret mind control experimental stations of all types and varieties at the request of government paid for with tax dollars. It was in this spirit and social climate at Yale that the child protection federal public policy was developed then implemented across the nation without public input. Three scholars from Yale, Goldstein, Solnit and Freud, wrote a book, “Beyond the Best Interest of the Child” that is the bible of family dependency court to this day. The book encourages fast, reckless and uninformed removal and adoption out of children. The authors further suggest that judges should have no human sensitivities to the victims they may create and to plow forth ignoring any and all objections. Horrified, parents and extended families finding their children removed and adopted out needlessly, discover deaf ears in every direction. Let the philosophy taught in the pages of that book be the reason. All court related persons are taught to kick family to the curb and treat them accordingly.

The book, which was bought into wholesale by the legal and legislative communities, then formed the basis for court room and agency development. Legal minds worked overtime constructing specialized courts that violate every Constitutional principle. Again, using the emotional imaging of children, the educated public along with legislators ignored the dangerous ideas brought forth believing that the only way to protect children was by committing rights violations of parents and families.

Social constructionists including the authors of Beyond the Best Interest of the Child, began to introduce the idea that children aren’t really bonded with family through genetics and can be bonded to anyone. They taught that the younger the child, the greater the success with stranger placement. The authors encouraged the removal of babies then adopting them out quickly without due process to facilitate bonding with strangers instead of prolonged litigation.

During the time all this was going on, the United States was also working with the United Nations to develop international policy on children’s rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child treaty was written with the US being primarily responsible for the contents. The treaty gives children all kinds of rights over and above parents and attempts to ensure their protection through government control. This is interesting, because at the same time the US was writing the treaty, indigenous Native American children were being removed from tribes, put in boarding homes, raped, sodomized, tortured and killed at the hands of our government. Fifty percent died from starvation and disease because of neglect. This went on to 1984.

Just recently, Florida had to enact a law that makes experimental drug use on foster children illegal. This is now 2010. Why, one might ask, is it necessary to have a law like this? Don’t fundamental human rights suggest that those ethics should already be in place? As child after child has died at the hands of pharmaceutical companies without consequence, our nation continues its propaganda that children are best protected by government control and intervention. A popular quote is that “nothing changes if nothing changes.” Simple, yet seems to apply here. The same issues of human rights violations from the 50s are still alive today.

Children are not faring better in foster care and it is unclear how most are doing in adoptive homes. The vast majority are dropping out of school and winding up in prisons. Thirty percent plus were abused in foster care. Many ended up bounced from foster home to foster home and developed serious attachment problems. Drug and alcohol issues abound with this group along with severe mental health issues. And the idea that they are no longer connected to their bio families? Try telling that to the thousands who seek each other out after the inflicted state holocaust once an adult and fall into each other's arms in tears.

Nobody really knows how children are doing in adoptive homes because the states are keeping it a secret. If an adoptive parent abuses, kills or rapes a child, it goes under “parent” in the statistics column. Adoptive parents are also backed up in courts trying to give the kids back to the states. This is not common knowledge either. I bet the violated parents or grandparents would take them.

People believe that if they call the CPS phone number on a family, then the child will be safe. Is this true or not? Most who pick up that phone believe something they have not researched. So, where does this information about child safety come from? The same people who write public policy while funding human rights violations.

The propaganda is on the radio and TV. It is distributed at the doctor’s offices and on billboards. It is offered as the only solution. Mandated reporting is everywhere and in everything the general public is required to participate in by government decree. Child care centers, dental offices, sporting events and local business, all sport sad faces of children needing help and assistance because of their atrocious poverty ridden parents who are half killing them.

Is that the truth? Only a small percentage of removed children are removed because of actual abuse. The rest are removed due to neglect with most of the evidence unsubstantiated. What does that mean? That the vast majority of children removed have no proof of abuse or neglect. Let that sink in.

Why are they focusing on parents in poverty? Are they really worse parents than those of higher incomes? The social constructionists focus on the poor who blame the poor for societal decay. The poor families pay few taxes, often use the welfare system, and tend to have educational differences that manifest itself through lineage. In public hearings before the legislators, child and family savers abound declaring Utopian ideals and ways to provide handouts or interfere in parenting rights. While people in poverty spend little time worrying about the upper classes, the upper classes avoid their own issues and problems by finger pointing to low income while targeting ways to “fix” them.

Keep in mind that the sociopaths creating wars, violating human rights, drugging people, going to countries for underage sex, and using the vulnerable for any manner of experiments all come from higher education and financial strata. There is a reason why we have the food and drug administration and it is not to protect the country from the toxic poor, but from those who would kill us all without conscience.

The Department of Defense is in the news after being exposed for 250 of their employees downloading and purchasing child porn. Only a few were investigated and convicted. The rest were ignored. How many of these people have children and was CPS called? Not likely any, because those in government positions only want to fix the poor. Looking at themselves is not part of social constructionist agenda.

Countless children are now being removed because of a husband or boyfriend who hits or abuses the mom. This is getting translated as somehow being the mom’s fault. The children get removed and adopted out. If a husband or boyfriend abuses a child when the mom is not home, the blame is also getting placed on the mother. Where are the women’s rights groups on this?

What is the government reasoning? Experts (oh boy!) are saying that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to grow up abusers and that the experience rewires their brain. And they know this how? From all the chips they are implanting without permission? Is this brain rewiring theory or fact? If fact, what means of testing this theory are they using?

Any experience that creates a paradigm shift in a person’s thinking may very well cause some brain chemistry changes to go with it. Graduating from high school, changing careers, joining the military, moving from one school to another might all qualify as brain changing activities. DV would certainly qualify as an incident or series of incidents that would affect a child’s perception. What does brain rewiring mean exactly? They don’t explain that part because they don’t know, yet they are using this as a primary weapon against the family. This is one of hundreds of obscure, unfounded reasoning excuses used to remove and adopt out children.

I had a discussion with a family therapist sent out to work with a family member. I asked her about whether they believe a child can be put down and allowed to cry for any length of time. She responded by saying that she believes that it does not harm a child to let them cry if they have been well attended to. She said that a child is taught that they are not the center of the universe and will seek more independence. She also reported that it is healthy lung development. The therapist then reported that there is division on this theory and that at least half of all other family therapists believe that a child should never be put down if they are crying but held continually. The problem is, whatever the therapist believes who is assigned to the family, that family better take on those values or get crucified in court.

Then there is the problem of observed visitations. One therapist may insist that you get down on the floor and play games with the children. Another may say if you do that you are immature. Some might say it is Ok to speak baby talk, others may say it impedes child verbal development. If a parent puts a child in time out, that may be abusive to that therapist. If a parent doesn’t put a child in timeout this may mean the parent can’t set boundaries to another. The question is this….if they don’t know how to raise children then how are they supposed to teach someone else?

If a judge orders a psychological evaluation and it is paid by the department, is the evaluator unbiased? Not from the evaluations I have seen. Mistakes abound and things get twisted in favor of the prosecution. A person can go to four different evaluators and end up with four different diagnosis even with the same information.

While the US is leaning towards the use of pseudo science psychology to base their decisions on, Israel gives the evaluators absolute power and authority and won’t do anything without an evaluation as it pertains to families. The UK has similar strategies. This is how powerful globally these associations have become, yet they can’t agree on even the simplest and most important of tasks.

What do social engineers and constructionists hope to accomplish? They want to increase the education of the children and the employability in more areas. They want to decrease religious ideology with more government dependency and values. They want fewer problems in the courts and more control on the streets. Because they have put our country in debt, they need the next generation’s taxes. Corporations want to pay lower wages while squeezing out small and medium business. Higher ups are embarrassed at low education scores and want those increased so the US looks better. More liberal special interest groups want to adopt children and take them from families and the legal system just wants federal dollars with little resistance from families when they adopt out their children to strangers. They want us all drugged, used for their purposes, controlled in every respect and don’t want our opinion about any of their behaviors. But most importantly, they want to make all the decisions regarding poor people’s children and will destroy any parent that objects while the wealthy continue to be pedophiles, rapists, murderers, embezzlers, sociopaths, drug addicts and alcoholics, perpetrators, predators of all types, and war mongers.

They accomplish all of this through constantly maintaining propaganda and reaffirming those ideals at every turn, while those who are not researching the truth become their parrots and supporters. The United States, who once was more non-authoritarian, has sustained successful social engineering in child protection advertising with the vast majority believing all the lies told, as the children and families suffer under tyranny and loss of rights. As philosophers and historians argue amongst themselves regarding control and management of the populace, one thing is clear and has been since time began. It is the poor who pays at the hands of the arrogant learned time and again.

Sorry, Martin Luther King. Your dream will not be realized any time soon.