COMPREHENSIVE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FEDERALIZE U.S. CHILDREN
By Congressman John R. Rarick, (La.)
October 5, 1971
Source: National Defense Committee, N.S.D.A.R.
1176 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
September 30 was a dark day for America. The Federal government has now been
authorized to take over our children.
Passage of the Brademas child development programs as an amendment to the OEO
bill, by a vote of 186 to 183 lays the foundation for the Federal government to
replace the home and for bureaucratic "experts" to replace the
parents.
One of the salient selling features was the repeated assertion that the Day Care
Centers were necessary to help working mothers and to provide facilities for
youth care to encourage unemployed mothers to seek gainful employment. Yet the
bill as passed by the House excludes mothers earning over $4,320 a year. This
makes a mockery of the propaganda that the bill is intended to help or encourage
mothers to work. On the contrary, it would discourage employment and
discriminate against the working mother making over $4,320. Nor can we assume
that the child development programs are mere federally funded baby sitting or
"new" education or, for that matter, confined to youth.
PRESIDENT NIXON WANTS YOUR CHILDREN EARLY
President Nixon, addressing Congress in 1969, recommended that the government
become involved in developing children during "the first five years of
life." The anticipated age range can be expected to be from infancy to
kindergarten. What significant educational training can there be for babies in
arms except to condition them to be away from their mothers and look to the
State for security and guidance?
FAMILY RESOURCE CENTERS
We are being told that something must be done for the millions of our children
who have no parents, are from broken homes, and are from homes where they are
mistreated or the parents are insensitive to the child's demands. This reveals
the real intent. The child development programs are not to help working mothers
but rather to establish federal custodial centers. The suggestion that society
could curtail the increase in crime by caring for those described as criminals
and dissidents in society is repulsive and unsupported by statistics, logic or
truth.
GOVERNMENT CAUSES THE PROBLEM, OFFERS THE SOLUTION
Likewise, repeated inferences that parents don't know how to control their
children or lack the understanding and interest to discipline them is hypocrisy.
For years the progressive experimenters of the new educational system have
encouraged smart aleckness as free speech and dissent. Children have been taught
that their parents are old fashioned - out of step with and ignorant of the
needs of changing times. In fact, the Congress has supplied the parents' and
taxpayers' funds to finance this teaching of disobedience, disrespect and
rebellion. It is revolting that the same organizations and movements which have
encouraged rebellion against parental control and respect of the home now offer
this conflict as an argument that parents are now incompetent to rear their own
children.
READ OUR LIPS - IT'S ONLY VOLUNTARY
Supporters of the child development programs urge that the service is voluntary
not mandatory, and that there will be nothing further to make the law apply to
other than disadvantaged children - that it is an end in itself. The American
people have heard these arguments and assurances before. Public education was
not originally compulsory. Congress is on record as prohibiting the use of
busing to achieve racial balance - children are bused anyway. Furthermore, the
bill indicates that it is but a beginning - the foot in the door - until the
people can be conditioned to accept more. The language of the bill makes this
most clear:
Section 522 (b) (5) - "It is the purpose of this Act to.... establish the
legislative framework for the future expansion of such programs to provide
universally available child development services."
Anyone who assumes these programs as being voluntary is either misinformed or
ignorant of the facts. The American people know better. They have learned
otherwise the hard way on too many occasions.
PARENTS "PARTNERSHIP" WITH BIG BROTHER AND LOSE CHILDREN
History records many examples of attempts by governments to gain control over
the minds and bodies of its young people. Hitler with his regimentation and
dreams of a new world order never achieved what these programs provide -
"the formation of a partnership of parents, community, State and local
governments to provide every child with a fair and full opportunity to reach his
full potential by establishing and expanding comprehensive child development
programs and services."
The child development programs authorize "comprehensive physical and mental
health, social, and cognitive development services necessary for children
participating in the program." Congress has instructed the Federal
Government to establish programs to take children away from their parents, place
them in custody of the State and rear them according to State-ordained programs
and activities. There is no prohibition or restriction on any sort of
instruction so long as it affects the child and is approved by the authorities.
PROGRAMS REMINISCENT OF NAZI YOUTH MOVEMENT
Child development proposals go further than providing for government-controlled
nursery schools, Headstart programs, or kindergartens. They provide for programs
to keep the child away from parents. The Secretary of HEW is instructed to
program a 24-hour day by providing for specially designed health, social, and
educational programs. Just when the parent is allowed time with the child
apparently depends on the comprehensive program or the person administering it.
This power grab over our youth is reminiscent of the Nazi youth movement; in
fact, it goes far beyond Hitler's wildest dreams or the most outlandish of the
Communist plans.
ENTER CHILD PROTECTIVE AGENCIES
The law provides for in-home services and training in fundamentals of child
development for parents, older family members acting as parents, youth, and
prospective parents. The law is clear that where it is impracticable to replace
the parent with the State, then the bureaucracy would train those functioning in
the capacity of parent as a paid agent of the State.
Child development proposals should remind us of Communist teachings on
destruction of the family unit. Leon Trotsky, writing in "The
Revolution Betrayed" 1936, commented, that "you cannot
'abolish the family, you have to replace it.'"
"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the nations!"