A Critical Examination of the Book and Concept of "Licensing Parents"

Jack Westman, author
of Licensing Parents

Licensing Parents is a book written by a professor of psychiatry named Jack Westman, which attempts to convince the reader that if the government required parents to be "licensed" before they were allowed to have children, it would result in fewer cases of child abuse and neglect.  Exploring and analyzing the concepts put forth in this book are important as there are people in positions of power that take this book, and concept, seriously.  One of those people is former judge for the Litchfield District Superior Court in Connecticut, Charles D. Gill.  Gill wrote the foreword to Licensing Parents, and says that this was the book that convinced him that parents should be licensed.  The influence of Judge Charles Gill in Connecticut law and politics was briefly explored in the article Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights".  This influence of Judge Gill deserves a more in-depth critical analysis, but for the sake of brevity, we will just focus on the concepts presented in Licensing Parents by it's author, Jack Westman.

There is great deal of information presented in this nearly 300 page book, a lot of which is easy to agree with.  For example, it does not take a trained psychiatrist to see that there are problems in society, and that many of the functions that are supposedly set up to fix these problems, are not working.  Westman begins his book mentioning some of these issues such as "widespread crime", "the abduction of children", and an increase in suicide among teens.  It is not so much Westman's diagnosis of society's problems that deserve scrutiny, but his radical solutions to these problems.  Before exploring Westman's proposed solutions, though, it is important to understand what he believes to be the causes of societies ills.

Connecticut Rep Pushing Forced Medication, Believes Allowing Parents to Use Religious Exemptions To Opt-Out Of Vaccinations A Mistake

The President of Danbury Nurses' Union, Mary Consoli, was testifying last week, at a state Public Health Committee public hearing, in opposition to a bill that would force vaccinate all health care workers in the state, when Connecticut State Representative Peter Tercyak went on a patronizing rant directed towards Consoli, and anyone else that is against forced medication, that included his belief that "maybe we've been to generous with allowing parents to claim a religious exemption", in regards to children who enter public schools without receiving the 'required' immunizations.

The five-minute exchange between Consoli and Tercyak, began at about 14 hours and 17 minutes into an extremely lengthy fifteen hour public hearing, which can be viewed, in it's entirety, here.  (Sidenote: If anyone reading this has any information, or instructions, in regards to how I would be able to record and capture a good quality short video clip of this exchange, from this fifteen hour stream, please e-mail me: TheGoodmanChronicle@gmail.com)

It is worth reading, hearing, and viewing, more of what Representative Peter Tercyak had to say during this exchange.  When Mary Consoli replied "No, what I'm saying is", in an attempt to correct Representative Tercyak for misrepresenting her beliefs, Rep Tercyak arrogantly cut her off and began:

"What your saying is you don't think people should have to take flu shots..."

When Mary Consoli was able to reply, she reminded the Representative that children are allowed a religious waiver to enter school without immunizations.  Rep Tercyak then snobbishly replied:

"Yes, and now we see many of the disease we thought we eradicated, coming back, and it will be interesting to see how many children...how many parents have to stay up all night worrying about their children dy...*correcting himself*...their childrens effects from whooping cough, before we decide maybe we've been too generous with allowing parents to claim a religious exemption"

Rep Tercyak eventually realized he was being a douche-bag (to say it best), and he began apologizing to Mary Consoli, after, again, condescendingly cutting her off:

"Ok I'm very sorry mam. I'm very sorry for going on like this.  You came to testify and you did. I thank you very much. You didn't come to be interrogated by me.  Excuse me thank you.  Thank you very much for you indulgence madame chair, next time I try this, you can slap me."

Representative Tercyak seems to embody the control-freak, pyschopath mentality that I have come to loathe in politicians.  The comment, 'maybe WE'VE been too generous', gets me angry.  It is implying that Representative Tercyak believes that he, being a part of the 'we' (the elite, the lords, the royalty) is being generous in allowing the peasants (us) to decide what goes into their bodies.  

Also, Rep. Tercyak seems to believe that there is an increase in whooping cough cases, as a result of parents who have chosen not to vaccinate their children.  The evidence does not support his belief.  One study done by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California, expected to see a rise in whooping cough among unvaccinated children, but actually ended up showing that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children.  From the report:

"We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention," said Dr. David Witt.

Of the 132 patients with whooping cough, under age 18, 81 percent were up to date on recommended whooping cough shots and eight percent had never been vaccinated. The other 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the complete series.

Manufacturing the whooping cough vaccine seems to be a great business;  the vaccine causes more whooping cough, yet doctors continue recommending the vaccine to prevent whooping cough.  A never ending cycle of profit!

I am sure the medical "experts" will have some way to combat, and twist, this information to recommend that we should have MORE vaccines, as a result.  That is why instead of a scientific argument against forced medication, my argument is for liberty; LEAVE ME ALONE.

If you believe in the effectiveness of vaccines, then YOU get them, but leave me alone.  If you think my unvaccinated child is a threat to your child, in public school, then YOU send your child to some special school, either that, or, give me my tax money back, that went into the public school, so I can have the resources to home school my child.  We have the right to decide what goes into our bodies, not the government.

CT State Representative Peter Tercyak Pushing Forced Medication pt 1 (video)

CT State Representative Peter Tercyak Pushing Forced Medication pt 2 (video)

Related Stories:

• Connecticut: Registered Nurses Speak Out Against New Bill That Would Force Vaccinate All Health Care Workers In The State - March 21, 2013 (link)
• Know Your Reps! CT State Senator Joe Markley Wants Fluoride Out Of The Water, and A Ban On Mandatory Flu Shots - March 07, 2013 (link)
• President Obama's 23 Executive Actions; Federal Spy Doctors, Forced Medication & Involuntary Commitment - January 21, 2013 (link)
• TV Doctors Are Paid To Push Drugs and Vaccines - January 16, 2013 (link)
• Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting - December 22, 2012 (link)
• Newtown, CT School Shooting: Medication, Tragedy, Truth, & Conspiracy - December 18, 2012 (link)

Connecticut: Registered Nurses Speak Out Against New Bill That Would Force Vaccinate All Health Care Workers In The State

A bill introduced by the state's Public Health Committee would require all employees of the health-care field, to receive a flu shot.

Quoting from the actual bill, Senate Bill 1128, AN ACT CONCERNING INFLUENZA IMMUNIZATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES:

"Each hospital...nursing home facility...and emergency medical service organization...shall ensure that each employee of such hosptial, nursing home facility, or emergency medical organization, who may have direct contact with a patient or resident, is immunized against influenza."

Several registered nurses submitted compelling testimony in opposition to this bill, Senate Bill 1128. Here are some excerpts of those testimonies:

• John Brady, a Registered Nurse at Backus Hospital in Norwich, submitted testimony in opposition to this bill.  Brady, who is also President of the Backus Federation of Nurses, a union representing approximately 400 registered nurses, writes about the adverse effects of vaccinations, as well as the ineffectiveness of the shots.  "As an emergency room nurse, I care for many patients who have received the flu vaccine and then tested positive for the flu."
• Mary Consoli RN, President of Danbury Nurses’ Union, representing 600 plus nurses, also gave testimony in opposition to SB 1128, quoting OSHA, which believes "there is insufficient scientific evidence for the federal government to promote mandatory influenza vaccination programs that do not have an option for the health care employees to decline for medical, religious and/or personal philosophical reasons.”  Consoli also related a personal story to the possible health risks associated with vaccinations.  "We had one RN at Danbury Hospital have a severe allergic reaction.  If it were not for the fact she was working in the Emergency Department, the consequences could have been more life threatening."  
• Jeanette Schultz, Registered Nurse, testifying in opposition to this bill, says "within 4 days of obtaining the flu shot, I noticed increased sensitivity and tingling in my hands and feet. It lasted approximately four days and then resolved. Since then I haven’t received the flu shot."  Last year, Schultz decided to choose the other option provided to her by her employer, to wear a surgical mask, however after twelve hour shifts, Schultz had complications to her throat, as a result of the mask.  
• Registered Nurse Tracey Rullo, who has gone over twenty years without ever receiving a flu shot, or being sick from the flu, spoke on the vaccines ineffectiveness.  "Many, if not, all of our patients admitted with the flu did have the flu vaccine."
• A nurse employed at Danbury Hospital, Michele Lopez, discussed how she was forced to take the flu shot, because the other option her employer provided her, to wear a surgical mask, after four weeks, caused her to have an upper airway and esophageal reaction.  After receiving the shot, Lopez said she felt "violated as a human being", and several hours later, she noticed her arm swelling, itching, and breaking out in hives.  Lopez was then admitted into the emergency room as a patient. 
• Erin Cummings, who has been a Registered Nurse for 8 years, believes this bill is a violation of his civil rights, and described his adverse reaction, after being forced vaccinated by his employer.  "Shortly after being injected, I experienced the frightening sensation of not being able to take a deep breath, and severe heart palpitations resulting in dizziness and vertigo."

To read the entire list of testimonies concerning Senate Bill 1128, click here.

Dr. Steven Aronin

One person who gave testimony in support of this bill, to force immunize nearly all health care workers in the state, was Steven I. Aronin, Chief of Infectious Diseases at Waterbury Hospital.  Aronin explained that he knows "first-hand the potentially devastating and debilitating impact that influenza and other infectious diseases can have on patients".  Aronin claims there "is abundant peer reviewed and evidence-based research supporting" the idea that forced vaccination of healthcare workers is correlated with decreased transmission and acquisition of influenza, though he did not provide any actual research, or study.

Steven Aronin boasts that Waterbury Hospital was able to administer over 2000 flu shots this year and achieve 100% compliance among clinical and non-clinical staff, though Aronin falsely credits this 100% compliance rate with the hospital "educating our employees about influenza, as well as the risk and benefits of the influenza vaccine".  Aronin must have forgot to point out the fact that these immunizations were FORCED, and there were hospital employees who protested, but were threatened with their jobs.

Also left out of his testimony, Aronin never gives any evidence indicating that the 100% FORCED compliance immunization rate in Waterbury Hospital, worked.  I know people who work at this hospital, who were involved in this debate, and they say there were several employees still sick with the flu, after being forced immunized, which again proves the ineffectiveness of the vaccination.

Another bill introduced this year in the Connecticut legislature looks to do the complete opposite of this bill.  Senate Bill 55, introduced by Senator Joe Markley, would prohibit employers from requiring employees to receive mandatory flu shots.  Let us hope that Senate Bill 55, gets more support than Senate Bill 1128.

I don't work in the medical field, however I know that I have to stick up for the rights of the people who do, because this attempt to force vaccinate everyone will continue to expand, until it is destroyed. I believe in the idea of liberty, and that includes a free-market, where a private business can set requirements for their employees, including mandatory vaccinations, and if an employee doesn't like it, they can leave and work somewhere else.  HOWEVER, hospitals, as well as public schools, receive government funding, therefore they are public entities, and cannot violate our natural inalienable rights, as a condition to our receiving services from, or working for, these organizations.

Related Stories:

• Connecticut Business Owners Could Soon Face $500 Fine For Not Having Paper Towels In Restroom - March 11, 2013 (link)
• Know Your Reps! CT State Senator Joe Markley Wants Fluoride Out Of The Water, and A Ban On Mandatory Flu Shots - March 07, 2013 (link)
• President Obama's 23 Executive Actions; Federal Spy Doctors, Forced Medication & Involuntary Commitment - January 21, 2013 (link)
• TV Doctors Are Paid To Push Drugs and Vaccines - January 16, 2013 (link)
• Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting - December 22, 2012 (link)
• Newtown, CT School Shooting: Medication, Tragedy, Truth, & Conspiracy - December 18, 2012 (link)

Forced Mental Health Assessments Being Proposed For All Children In Connecticut

In the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, CT, some legislators in the states capital have been working hard to implement a 'mental health' plan, under the guise of 'protecting the children', that would greatly benefit pharmaceutical companies.  The plan seems to be, to get you, and your child, onto addictive, and deadly, prescription medication, by mandatory health assessments, and forced medication.

Senator Toni Harp

Representative Toni Walker

The latest bills having to do with 'mental health' proposed in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, are Senate Bill 169, AN ACT CONCERNING MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN, and Senate Bill 374, AN ACT REQUIRING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN.  Both of these bills were introduced by Senator Toni Harp, and Representative Toni Walker, who are both Democrats representing the New Haven area.


Senate Bill 374 would require "each pupil enrolled in public school at grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 and each home-schooled child at ages 12, 14 and 17 to have a confidential behavioral health assessment.", while the other piece of legislation, Senate Bill 169, would "require that local and regional boards of education and health care providers assess every child for social, emotional, behavioral and mental health to ensure the delivery of necessary services and interventions."

The Home School Legal Defense Association, a non-profit advocacy group, recently sent out a call to action over this matter, requesting that citizens contact their representatives to urge them to strike the bill down.  Senator Toni Harp has since said she would drop the requirement for homeschooled children, but said she would consider adding private school to the legislation.

The state's Committee on Children held a vote concerning Senate Bill 169, and it passed with an 8-4 vote.  Representative Whit Betts was one of the four representatives to vote against it, calling the legislation "far reaching".  For a video of this hour-long committee hearing, which also discussed the labeling of genetically modified baby foods, click here.

Also, the state Public Health Committee held a public hearing, March 08, at Wesleyan University in Middletown, and the other piece of legislation, Senate Bill 374, requiring behavioral health assessments for children, was on the agenda to be reviewed, however I can not find a transcript, or recording, of this event.  The only information I can find regarding this hearing, is the submission list of the public testimonies concerning S.B. 374, and other bills discussed that day.  According to the Connecticut General Assembly website, there has yet to be a vote on S.B. 374.

One notable group that is lobbying for the passage of these two bills is the CT Association of School Based Health Centers.  The President of this organization, JoAnn Eaccarino, submitted testimony to the public health committee, in support of Senate Bill 374, and suggested even more strict standards, or as Eaccarino puts it, "some changes to enhance the spirit of the bill".  Among these changes are making sure behavioral assessments be done on children, much younger than suggested:

"Our suggestion would be to start these assessments with their first entry into school.  Educators have told us that they can identify a troubled child by 1st grade…so waiting until 6th grade may have missed some critical developmental milestones."

Also discussed in the testimony of Eaccarino are suggestions to allow the health care provider performing the assessment on the child, to share the results with more people, as well as having health centers based in the school, screening children.

What you need to know is that the CT Association of School Based Health Centers is connected to the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, Johnson & Johnson, which would greatly profit off legislation, like these two bills proposed in Connecticut, which would require more involvement of medical 'professionals', meaning more involvement of pharmaceutical drugs, in the lives of the American people.

The full connection goes like this; the Connecticut Association of School Based Health Centers launched as part of a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).  According to the RWJF website, "the Foundation was established as a national philanthropy in 1972 with a generous bequest of shares of Johnson & Johnson (J&J)", and has total assets of $9 billion.

Dave Hitt, of DaveHitt.com, shared his experiences with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:

"In reality they are a front group for the pharmaceutical industry..specifically for the giant Johnson & Johnson corporation.  If Johnson & Johnson were to get directly involved in the politics of health most people would be very suspicious of their motives and critical of their claims. So one of the founders did something very clever - he set up the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as an "independent" charity whose primary source of income is the dividends on six billion (yes, billion) dollars worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. What's good for J&J is good for RWJF...Political activism can theoretically cost a charity its non-profit status. Although this law is (sadly) seldom enforced, RJWF is careful not to violate it directly. Instead of pushing for laws themselves, they generously fund third party activist groups, then sit back and let their lackeys do all the work."

The third party activist group in the case discussed today is the CT Association of School Based Health Centers.

A universal health screening program has been the stated goal of pharmaceutical company lobbyists before the shooting in Newtown, CT.  Former veteran Congressman Ron Paul, in 2011, was speaking out against this push for mandatory health screenings, calling it 'a persistent lobbying effort, funded by pharmaceutical companies, to increase the number of these (drug) prescriptions to even more children."  The tragedy of Sandy Hook has enhanced these efforts.

If you are thinking that you have nothing to worry about, because neither you, or your children, have a mental illness, keep in mind that the list of mental disorders is ever-growing, and includes illness' like "Oppositional Defiant Disorder", which you can be labeled with for "disagreeing with someone in a position of authority".  Also, some studies, like one put out by the Children’s Services Working Group, suggest that the number of people that unknowingly have a mental illness may be as high as 20%, in a state like Connecticut.

It could be you, or your child, who is one day force medicated, after your mental health screening comes back to show that you have a 'mental illness', like 'oppositional defiant disorder'.

Related Stories:

• TV Doctors Are Paid To Push Drugs and Vaccines - January 16, 2013 (link)
• President Obama's 23 Executive Actions; Federal Spy Doctors, Forced Medication & Involuntary Commitment - January 21, 2013 (link)
• Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting  - December 22, 2012 (link)
• Newtown, CT School Shooting: Medication, Tragedy, Truth, & Conspiracy - December 18, 2012 (link)

President Obama's 23 Executive Actions; Federal Spy Doctors, Forced Medication & Involuntary Commitment

On Wednesday, President Obama announced the creation of 23 'executive actions' pertaining to 'gun violence reduction', in response to the Sandy Hook school shooting.  He even brought children on stage with him, high-fived, and hugged the kids before signing the actions, which to some, resembled tyrants in the past who used children as props in their propaganda campaigns.




There was talk in the media of a possible federal ban on certain types of assault rifles, and/or ammunition, however none of the twenty-three executive actions call for a physical ban of anything.  There are orders dealing with background checks, information evaluation, new federal programs, and even five orders dealing with 'health care', in relation to gun violence.

Surely these orders will make it slightly more difficult for some Americans, in the future, to obtain firearm protection, but, in my opinion, the main purpose of these executive orders is to further the federal governments involvement into your life through the health care system.

Of the twenty three executive orders, the one that seems the most disturbing to me is number sixteen, which states, "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."  There was already concern that the Affordable Care Act intruded on doctor/patient confidentiality, and this new executive order furthers those concerns. Essentially, the federal government will spy on you through your medical doctor.  Last month, I reported on a federal program to also turn your local religious leaders (priests, pastors, reverends, etc.), into spies for the federal government.

I believe these executive orders are an indication on how the interests that control Barack Obama, plan to handle their opposition.  Instead of direct bans or restrictions on liberties, you could be labeled with a 'mental illness', and from there, your liberties restricted.

Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting

Accused CT shooter, Adam Lanza

Politicians are pushing for more 'mental health treatment', in the aftermath of the CT Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.  As I had documented last week, the majority of these public mass murders, involve the accused killers either taking, or coming off of, 'psychiatric' drugs.  Regardless of how strong the connection between these prescription drugs, and mass murder, become, our public 'officials' continue to team-up with the mainstream media, who are both heavily financially influenced by pharmaceutical companies, to tell us that even MORE drugs, given out to MORE people, and directing MORE money to the pharmaceutical companies is the direction we should go in.

There is a number of public 'officials' now attempting to push a more aggressive mental health agenda, and here a few examples:

-  South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley said Thursday that the state should be able to "detect it in schools", when speaking on mental health problems.

-  Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia issued a statement on the tragedy in Newtown, CT, saying "there is an incredible shortage of mental health providers across the country...this is yet another area where action is necessary."

-  A coalition of health "experts" have asked the federal government for new funds for mental health programs.   Psychologist Ron Manderscheid, with the National Association of Counties, leads the coalition, and claims "only about a third of the people who actually have a mental illness get any care."