DSS: Social Engineers of the Brave New World

Sierra Times ^ | 12/18/01 | Ed Pawlick

[Lumberjack]

DSS: Social Engineers of the Brave New World By Ed Pawlick - MassNews.com 12.18.01 Although this article may sound ?extreme? to many readers at first glance, please consider it carefully. So far, these programs will probably have had no effect on you personally, because most of these programs apply only to the poor ? for now. The stated intent is to expand it to everyone. The author of the article has had personal experiences with DSS and has helped countless others over the past three years. You can discover more about the home visitors program in Massachusetts (and its secret, intimate database of the mothers it visits) in our August 2000 issue or at our Internet archives at ?healthy families.? By Nev Moore President, Justice for Families January 2001 The staggering financial incentives that have corrupted DSS policies and practices were featured in the May 2000 edition of Massachusetts News in the article, ?Adoption Bonuses: the Money Behind the Madness.? It explained the financial motivation for DSS to snatch children and quickly force them into adoption. Previously, Ed Oliver had written a revealing article that explained how consulting firms are hired to maximize the revenue of DSS. These pieces tell why DSS does what it does. Easy enough for even the most uninformed citizen to understand. The questioning mind might wonder why the federal government continues to enable this terribly dysfunctional and destructive system that harms and kills more children than it ?saves.? This leads us to the next phase: the madness behind the federal money. It?s no surprise to any of us (is it?) that there are many people who will sell their souls for a little bit of dirty money. Under the label of ?liberal?, these brave new socialists are control freaks who are working out their own inner feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy by dominating others. These are the soldiers, passive-aggressive drones who tell you: ?We?re here to ?help? you  - whether you like it or not.? It?s easy to seduce small-minded, bitter people by offering a little money and unlimited power. The power to harm - without consequences - is irresistible to many. Behind the money is a faction of people who are intent on bringing to fruition Aldous Huxley?s nightmare vision of a brave new world: a homogenized population of compliant, controllable, government-raised citizens. Reported in Detail Massachusetts News reported all of this in detail in its August 2000 edition, including the work of Dr. C. Henry Kemp and his protégé, Richard Krugman, who was chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board  on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1991. (See ?home visitation? on our archives.) The elite behind this movement are narcissistic men and women who wish to see the United States under a totalitarian regime which, of course, will not apply to them, only to the general population. The architects and engineers of this plan are, in reality, about as ?liberal? as Pol Pot or Idi Amin. The plan is being implemented through the bill entitled ?Goals 2000? which was enacted in 1994. It?s the end result of thirty years of work by others who work out of the public eye. Goals 2000 was presented as ?education reform.? Considering that our kids graduate from high school not knowing how to read or write, on the surface it sounds like a good thing. It sounds as if the education system will be reformed to bring back higher standards, which would be the logical inference. But, the real intent of Goals 2000 is to ?dumb down? our children, rather than to raise their intellectual level. Goals 2000 is about much more than just education reform. It is the blueprint of a plan to take control of our nation?s children - the next generation of adults. A chilling clue to its true intent is that, among its proponents it is sub-titled: ?the Restructuring of American Society - from Cradle to Grave.? The government will be the ?parent? of every citizen born in the United States. Each citizen will have an electronic portfolio that begins at birth and will track the person throughout his life. Their education and future place in the work force will be determined by the government. The schools will subject all children to psychological testing. Every parent will have a social worker who will make home visits, conduct a family assessment, and record ?risk factors.? Risk factors include not enough toys, too many toys, birth of a sibling, death or divorce in the family, homeschooling, etc. The unholy trinity that is enforcing Goals 2000 is: Child Protective Services (CPS), known as DSS in Massachusetts, the Home Visitation Program (see the August 2000 edition of MassNews), and Outcome Based Education (OBE). The public is deliberately being kept in the dark as to how these elements are connected because the original proponents of this plan stated that it must be implemented quietly. Why is the intent of OBE to ?dumb down? our children? Because a ?dumbed down? citizen will not have the capability of independent thinking, will be less likely to challenge, and is therefore more easily controlled. OBE is also responsible for eroding values, boundaries, and morals. The schools, while paying lip-service to the need for discipline and structure in child rearing, in practice undermine parental authority and any form of discipline, self-restraint, or values that parents try to instill in their children. Children are being taught that they must accept the state?s politically correct ideas rather than their families? values and that their parents do not have the right to discipline them or make any decisions for them. OBE amounts to thought reform - and thought reform is mind control. The December 1999 edition of WorldNetDaily contained an excellent review by Samuel L. Blumenfeld, a scholar who lives in Waltham, on The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, a book written by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. Blumenfeld wrote: ?Anyone who has any lingering hope that what educators have been doing is a result of error, accident, or stupidity will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.? Example Close to Home An example of deliberate dumbing down occurred close to home recently when my assistant, Stacie Hevener, noticed that her 9-year-old daughter?s graded homework contained misspelled words that the teacher hadn?t corrected. When Stacie called the teacher to ask her why the spelling errors weren?t corrected, the teacher said it wasn?t important. While OBE and DSS stories initially sound nonsensical and far-fetched ? all logic and reason turned upside down ? they fall into place when considered in the context of implementing a socialist agenda. To gain control of the populace the government must break down the existing systems that give people strength, character, and community cohesion: family, marriage, faith, and intellect. This explains the puzzling fact that DSS is not targeting the drug-ridden ghettos where many families do live in filth and chaos and many children are truly neglected and abused. Those families are already broken down, and that is what DSS? role is - to act as the jackboots who will enforce compliance by the citizens and, ultimately, break down the institution of family until it is eliminated completely leaving individuals isolated, vulnerable and dependent on the government. So, instead of saving children who are abused, neglected, and abandoned, DSS targets Christians, homeschoolers, and families with strong marriages where two parents are committed to raising their children to be decent and self-sufficient, with a solid foundation of values and the capability to think independently. Most of us still believe that is the caring and responsible way to raise children, but this is exactly what the government doesn?t want, as that takes the control away from Big Brother. During the Communist takeovers in Russia and China, the aristocracy and the intellectuals were murdered en masse as they would be the people most likely to see the larger picture and be capable of organizing to halt it. By the time the average working citizen, distracted by the details of daily survival, sees what?s happening and stands to defend his freedom, it?s too late. It?s interesting to add the gun control issue into the equation, as disarming citizens is a key factor for successful government control. We have plenty of gun-control laws already, the problem is that only law-abiding citizens follow the law, and those aren?t the people we need to worry about. Obviously, a person who has no compunction about shooting a stranger in the head is not worried about violating other laws. There is no question that there is a powerful anti-father agenda in this country today, but we need to recognize that the anti-father agenda is a component of the anti-family agenda. The vicious feminist movement not only attacks men, but also attacks women who desire to be in a marriage and raise a family with their husbands. By removing husbands, the government can create isolation and vulnerability in women, as well as making them financially dependent on the state. Children may be questioned about whether their parents ever argue or yell. Any conflict or disagreement between spouses is documented as ?domestic violence? and opens up a whole new funding floodgate. Documented in Our Case Files Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating can see copies of service plans from our case files which state "parents will not yell" and "parents will not have loud or angry arguments." All people disagree at some time or another. Most people, at some time, become angry, argue and even raise their voices. Conflict is part of the human condition. Children have witnessed their parents argue for millions of years. It is not always comfortable, but not necessarily damaging either. Perhaps, by witnessing things we learn how to do things differently. By grossly stretching the boundaries of definition for domestic violence, DSS has managed to remove thousands of men from their homes and from the lives of their children. There is plenty of sound, scientific literature on the negative effects of fatherless households on children, and the degree to which fatherlessness contributes to the emotional and behavioral decline of children. That is the goal of DSS, backed by the feminists. This begins to explain why the funding to ?combat domestic violence? is channeled through DSS. It is an anti-family, anti-Christian, pro-feminist, pro-gay organization. This is far, far removed from the original purpose of protecting children from abuse and serious neglect that place a child at ?imminent risk of serious harm.? Their function is to act as social engineers enforcing a plan of ?social restructuring? through coercion, threats, and intimidation by seizing or threatening to seize, our children. Remember, it is DSS who the police, the schools, the day care centers and the doctors call to turn parents in, not necessarily for acts of abuse or neglect, but because the parents are resistant to enforced government programs. Enforced programs such as home visitation, parent ?training,? drugging or unnecessary vaccinations, explicit sexual instruction or participation in batterers ?treatment? by parents. The threat of having your children seized, or never seeing them again, is a powerful weapon to force citizens to submit to government control.          While breaking down the intellectual development and moral fiber of our children at school, the schools are also subversively intruding into our homes. Many shocked parents are reporting bizarre and invasive questionnaires given to their children in school. Children may be asked if their parents argue or ?yell,? if the parents drink, if daddy travels on business, or if there has been a death in the family and if any of the above frighten or upset the child. These are all considered ?risk factors? in the Goals 2000 family assessment and will red flag a family for DSS intervention. Home visitation social workers will also note allergies, mother being overweight, baby crying, and letting kids stay up too late as ?risk factors?. YMCA Has Joined in When our daughter was ten, her school called and told me that the YMCA was offering an after school  ?adventure? course on the grounds of their summer camp. It would involve the rope course and other outdoor, physical activities. This was offered during the winter so we thought it would be a great chance for her to beat the winter indoor doldrums. The YMCA sent home paperwork for us to complete. I was expecting the usual forms for contact information, emergency contacts, medical information. Instead I received a four-page interrogation. After name/address/child?s age, the third question was: ?Has there been a history of foster care placement?? Some of the rest of the questions asked if any of the following applied to our child: Poor attitude towards authority Swearing Yelling Argumentative Listens to first request (are there really children who do this?) Family history of drug, alcohol, or tobacco use Poor choice of friends Please include any police involvement or arrests (of child?s)   Age at first arrest DSS contact Fire setting Diagnosed mental health issues Sexual identity issues Bear in mind that this questionnaire was for 9- and 10-year-old little girls. When I said that I felt the form to be inappropriate and invasive and that I would not fill out anything other than necessary information, our daughter was denied participation. Licensing of Parents In addition to the Home Visitation program, which brings the government in control of the child before school age, Goals 2000 is being implemented through parent licensing, parent-teacher compacts, and parental report cards issued by the schools. These programs, under various names, are either in place or being proposed across the nation. Parental Licensing is still a point of controversial discussion, although legislation to pass it into law has been submitted in other states. The government will determine who may have children and who may not. Jack C. Westman, a psychiatrist at the University of Wisconsin and author of Licensing Parents: Can We Prevent Child Abuse?, explains. ?A parent license would place the responsibility on parents to be competent. The burden of proof would be on the parents to demonstrate that they are not abusing and neglecting their children rather than on the state to prove through quasi-legal proceedings that parents are unfit after they have damaged their children.? So, parents will be in the position of having to disprove a negative, and having to prove that they will not commit future acts. As one of the most prominent advocates for parental licensing, he adds, ?We must create a new paradigm in which parenthood is a privilege.? Most parents feel that being a parent is a privilege, a gift from God that gives our lives meaning and purpose. But, should it be an entitlement given to us by the government? Does this mean that some citizens will be deemed workers, and others breeders? If the government will select who may propagate and who may not, how many steps away are we from mandatory sterilization of those deemed unfit by the government, or those who do not conform to a societal ideal established by the government? Or will we allow ?them? to breed to provide children to others? David Lykken, author of Antisocial Personalities, and a strong advocate of parental licensing, calls for the immediate removal of newborns from unlicensed mothers so that they may be placed directly into foster homes and quickly adopted. Who will determine who gets the privilege of a license? Will it be used as a perk for those who ?go along? and do not resist the socialist regime? Who will make the determination of who may have children and who may not? Will it be done randomly by a computer? The Illinois legislation established that not having a license would be grounds for the social workers to remove the children. An interesting sidebar is that although parental licensing advocates are adamant about the issue, they do not feel that it is necessary for social workers or foster parents to have licenses.       Parent Training Paving the way towards parent licensing is the ?Parent Training? program, also enacted in 1994, which is already firmly entrenched. In the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994, local education agencies are required to reserve a percentage of their Title I, section 1118, ?Parental Involvement? funds for programs that teach ?parenting skills,? not to teens in school, but to parents who have children enrolled in the schools. Schools are directed to ?coordinate and integrate? their parental involvement strategies with programs like the ?Parents as Teachers? program that was initiated in Missouri and became mandatory for all Missouri school districts in 1984. The program, which is a ?home/school partnership that begins at birth? has spread to 44 states, including Massachusetts. In this mandatory program, parents are ?trained? by ?parent educator trainers? (PETs - can you stand it!). The program is based on the offensive assumption that all parents are in need of ?training? and the majority are ?at risk.? Which explains the condescending, overbearing attitude that we see in DSS. The PETs use a Goals 2000 assessment tool called a ?risk factor matrix? which includes 12 categories of ?at risk? parents. As there is no code to indicate a normal, well-functioning family, any family can fit into the ?at risk? category. Some of the questions from the Parents as Teachers workbook are: Does mother respond to child?s vocalizations with verbal response? Is mother?s speech distinct, clear, and audible? Mother occasionally allows child to engage in messy types of play. Mother does not scold child. At least ten books are present and visible during a PET visit. Parent comments verbally on child?s hunger cues. Parent does not offer food while child looks down or turns away. Parent does not compress lips, grimace, or frown when making eye contact with child. Parent verbalizes to child within five seconds after child has vocalized. Parent does not talk baby talk to child. Child stops displaying distress cues within fifteen seconds after parents soothing attempts.  Other observations to be documented by PETs include: Does child express distress during grooming (hair brushing, face washing, nail clipping)? Does child withdraw from splashing water? Does child have difficulty standing in line? Does child avoid certain tastes or smells? Is child a picky eater? Child seeks all kinds of movement. Child doesn?t seem to notice when face or hands are messy. Does child jump from one activity to another? Does child leave clothing twisted on body? Child appears not to hear what parent says. Child watches people move around room. Does child squint in bright light? Anyone who holds the same Ph.D. that I do, a Ph.D. in common sense, will immediately recognize these symptoms as the ?pathology? of any child. However, the government agents who are using this workbook to assess your adequacy as a parent claim that these behaviors indicate child abuse and neglect. Perpetrated by you - the parents. They also include ?passive abuse? which includes ?neglecting to fill out school forms.? Worcester School Has Parental Report Cards To justify the need for parent training programs, the schools have initiated ?Parent-Teacher Compacts? and parental ?report cards.? Some compacts are simple, others can consist of dozens of pages of invasive questioning. Douglas Elementary School in Worcester, MA sends out a compact  for parents to sign that states that they will ?ensure their children get to school on time, well-rested and well-nourished in addition to monitoring their homework and leisure time.? Who is going to judge if you have adequately performed these duties? If the schools do not sent out the questionnaires they will lose their federal aid. The irony is that the federal aid is only channeled to districts that need it because they are considered ?disadvantaged.? So, parents in wealthier districts will be exempt from this governmental intrusion and judgment and will not face admonishment if their children ate candy bars for breakfast, or are not ?well-rested? or the parents forgot to sign the orange homework folder each night. In some school districts the wording has already changed from ?compact? to contract, and mandates that all parents contribute a specified number of ?volunteer? hours to the school. This may include baby-sitting for school employees. Parent report cards document their compliance with the parent/school compact. One parent report card that we have obtained includes the following areas and questions: (on the report card, a check mark indicates that the parent is ?successfully nurturing the home/school connection?): Attendance: Children should be absent only for the following reasons: illness, death of an immediate family member, observance of a religious holiday, or extreme family emergency. Punctuality: the parent has the child to school on time each day. Student health & safety: Has the child eaten healthy meals and snacks; dresses child appropriately for the weather; registers child for school aftercare program. Parent-school communications: parent supports school policies; parent attends school functions; completes and returns school documents; has child return completed homework each day. Parent involvement: signs and returns the daily parent homework checklist; attends parent-teacher conferences; volunteers in classroom; praises child often; follows through on school?s suggested plans for child?s success; spends quality time with child. Given the extremely interpretive nature of the questions, who could we trust enough to make these assessments? Why should we be ?assessed? when we haven?t done anything wrong? Do we really want to give government agents the right to assess us as human beings and as moms and dads for interpretive social reasons and in the absence of acts of maltreatment towards our children? Who is to judge if the time you spend with your child is ?quality time,? or if you have dressed them ?appropriately?? Is this before or after they lost their hats and mittens between your home and the school? Is that sugary fruit juice and chemically sprayed celery a ?healthy snack?? I know that I, for one, can never remember to sign the orange homework folder, but then I failed all the other questions, too. My child definitely cannot stand still in a line, and, I confess, she absolutely squints in bright light, so I might as well just turn myself in to a ?parental training camp,? which is where parents who fail their report cards in Illinois have to go. I?d better start packing right away. The recent case in Massachusetts about the boy who wanted to wear girls clothes to school and use the girls? bathroom illustrates the hypocrisy of this system. When we teach children about homosexual sex in school, we cannot pretend to be surprised when they assert their ?right? to act it out. At the same time, the national media has been giving exposure to another story about a boy who was taken away from his parents by social services because they allowed him to wear girls clothes to school. In the Massachusetts case the lesbian Judge Linda Giles wrote: ?This court trusts that exposing children to diversity at an early age serves the important social goals of increasing their ability to tolerate differences and teaching them respect for everyone?s experience,? in the ?Brave New World? out there. How does DSS fit in? They are the enforcers who will remove your children if you don?t ?go along.? A state police sergeant recently told me that DSS is the ultimate authority over all issues regarding children in Massachusetts. Experience and statistics tell us that DSS is neither a caring nor safe caretaker of our children. When DSS clients call the legislators for help they are told: ?We can?t help you, we have no power over DSS.? Yet, I have a letter from U.S. Health & Human Services in Washington that says it is indeed the state legislators? responsibility to hold DSS accountable. The buck is passing faster here than a three-card Monty game in Times Square. In the not-so-brave New World of Goals 2000, which already has much of it in effect, the government will dictate how we think and behave, how we interact in our marriages and relationships, even what tone of voice we use. Literature on battered women?s syndrome teaches us that batterers are motivated by the need to control. This is accomplished over time by tearing down the victim?s individuality, self-esteem and free will until the person no longer resists or attempts to assert any independence. This includes their thinking process. The victim becomes apathetic, submissive, and compliant - robot-like. This insidious tearing down process is also the foundation of brainwashing and hostage taking techniques and is clearly seen in the coercive government intrusion and control that we are seeing in this country today: the insidious removal of our free will. From the Janurary Print Edition of Massachusetts News.

[Lumberjack]

Strange, isn't it? Every single sign of a "problem child" indicate a normal, healthy child according to common sense standards. The author is correct in his observation of why aren't inner city children, who might actually need the help, being targeted, while normal, healthy and strong families are being split apart by these useless drones? Food for thought

[goodieD]

When Stacie called the teacher to ask her why the spelling errors weren?t corrected, the teacher said it wasn?t important.

This is one of the reasons I began homeschooling my daughter 5 years ago. She was doing very poorly in math and could not write legibly. I was told by the school that it "wasn't important". She could "use a calculator, and learn to keyboard instead". I yanked her out then and there.

[Marobe]

Children don't need to be targeted .... DDS employees and their families need to be targeted. Got a neighbor who supports and/ or works for DDS ... help inspire them to find another neighborhood in which to live. Somewhere like China. Americans need to get active. They need to send a messgae to other Americans that don't appreciate the Constitution and family values that they've made dangerous and possibly fatal mistakes. Sound harsh ??? Explain to your child why you waited to react then tell me I'm harsh. Home schoolers rule and are the last vestige of real education in this country.