NANNY STATE SHOCK: CALIFORNIA BILL WOULD STRIP PARENTAL RIGHTS

NANNY STATE SHOCK: CALIFORNIA BILL WOULD STRIP PARENTAL RIGHTS 
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 

A new bill introduced in the California Senate promises to guarantee
“children’s rights.” But it really amounts to eviscerating parents’
rights and empowering the state — to raise your kids in its own image.
And with 38-million-strong California being a trendsetter, the
legislation’s success could mean it would soon appear in a government
near you.

Dubbed the “Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California,” the measure was, InfoWars Jon Rappoport tells us,

Introduced by the notorious [Dr.] Richard
Pan, the mover and shaker behind the mandatory vaccination law in CA —
[and] this new one, SB18, is a grab-bag of generalities basically giving
over care of children to the State.
Catch the flavor of the wording. It
emerges like swamp gas: “The Legislature finds and declares that all
children and youth, regardless of gender, class, race, ethnicity,
national origin, culture, religion, immigration status, sexual
orientation, or ability, have inherent rights that entitle them to
protection, special care, and assistance, including, but not limited to,
the following: The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act
in their best interest. The right to form healthy attachments with
adults responsible for their care and well-being. The right to live in a
safe and healthy environment. The right to social and emotional
well-being. The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive,
physical, and social development. The right to appropriate, quality
education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood. The
right to appropriate, quality health care.”
As if all these outcomes could be delivered to children on a silver platter.
And the State would make it so.

The state’s victory is in the vagueness. For example, what
constitutes a child’s “best interest”? Will this mean exposing him to
explicit sex education, including the “transgender” agenda; to
“tolerance training” relating the “all values are equal” notion that
“truth” is relative; and to “freedom” from necessary discipline? These
things are in fashion, after all.

Second, how can the “right” to “emotional well-being” be guaranteed
when even adults often have trouble achieving such? And how can liberals
claim to be guarantors of it? Studies have shown
they suffer from mental illness (and what is thus labeled) more often
than conservatives do, a phenomenon I observed during my many years
working with children. I virtually never saw a youngster from a
conservative home diagnosed with “ADHD,” for example, and this is no
surprise. As family psychologist John Rosemond has pointed out, ADHD
behavior is simply typical toddler behavior extended into later
childhood by permissive (read: liberal) parenting.

And what is proper “social development” and what would
“opportunities” to attain it be? Would this involve encouraging early
dating; exposure to (corruptive) popular culture; interaction with a
“diverse” set of peers, where one bad apple can spoil the bunch; and
inculcation with globalist ideas to create good little “citizens of the
world”?

There’s also another agenda here. As the website Modern Alternative Health points out,
“Most likely, the state defines ‘optimal cognitive, physical, and
social development’ as occurring within the public school system. Pan
has not been shy about his opposition to homeschooling, and this point
may be used to remove or severely restrict the right to homeschool.”

No doubt. Statists are unanimous in their opposition to homeschooling; the Big Brother governments in Germany and Sweden,
which persecute homeschoolers, are good examples. And why is no
mystery. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle stated, “Give me a child
until he is seven and I will show you the man” and Abraham Lincoln
observed, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be
the philosophy of government in the next.” Of course, the philosophy of
the school room today cannot be the philosophy of government tomorrow
unless you get students in the schoolroom in the first place.

Yet what’s truly dangerous about SB18 is, again, it’s vagueness,
which gives bureaucrats great latitude to interpret its provisions as
they see fit. Just consider the following provision:

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature
in enacting this act to expand and codify the Bill of Rights for
Children and Youth of California created by Assembly Concurrent
Resolution No. 80 (Res. Ch. 101, Stats. 2009), to establish a
comprehensive framework that governs the rights of all children and
youth in California, outlines the research-based essential needs of
California’s children, and establishes standards relating to the health,
safety, well-being, early childhood and educational opportunities, and
familial supports necessary for all children to succeed.

Modern Alternative Health analyzes this passage thus:

This point basically sums up what they’ve
said so far. This law doesn’t do anything, except give them permission
to create standards and programs to enforce those standards. We won’t
know exactly what they’re going to come up with or to what extent
they’ll enforce them until after this law is passed.
It is not acceptable to pass a law like
this that has such vague and sweeping implications with poorly-defined
parameters. Especially not in California, where parental rights have
been stripped increasingly over the last 5 years.

The bill continues in this open-ended vein, stating in SEC. 2 that it
is “the intent of the Legislature … to enact appropriate legislation to
accomplish all of the following”: “Develop and put forth research-based
policy solutions,” “Determine the amount of revenue and resources,” and
“Identify and obtain the revenue and resources … necessary to ensure
that the Bill of Rights for Children and Youth of California, in its
totality, is applied evenly, equitably, and appropriately to all
children and youth across the state.”

What will these “research-based policy solutions” be? How much will
this agenda cost and how will it be paid for? The government doesn’t
say, but apparently has carte blanche with the “solutions” and a blank
check with the budget. It’s as with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi infamously saying
about ObamaCare, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out
what’s in it.” Except in this case you’ll keep finding out, again and
again and again, as the “solutions” continuously change and the price
tag ever grows with SB18 measures that can morph like the shape-shifting space alien in The Thing.

And who may cash in on this pot of gold? Most suspicious is that one
of the entities behind the bill is The Silicon Valley Community
Foundation, Jon Rappoport informs,
“a non-profit that has assets of $7.3 BILLION” and “runs 1800
philanthropic funds.” It has a list of big-money corporate partners,
too. As he also writes, “For some reason, this huge Foundation is
pushing a children’s bill of rights that … will eventually make the
State the top-dog controlling force over all children in California. You
can bet these corporate partners will reap profits. Beyond that, this
is their version of a MASSIVE social engineering program.”

It’s the state’s version, too. The good news is that the bill is
still in its early stages and wouldn’t take effect until 2022, so
there’s still some chance to scuttle it if people fight hard. And
hopefully they will because, with SB18, the red flags are everywhere.
The only telling promise we haven’t yet heard is, “If you like your
child, you can keep your child.”