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 morein-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.
It has been more than six months since the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT. In response to the event, Connecticut politicians have passed a controversial 139-page gun-control bill, SB-1160, that requires gun registration, doubles the penalties on firearms, requires a permit to acquire ammunition, reforms mental health laws, and much more. Schools across the country even want to change building designs, and have increased security, because of the CT school shooting. The problem is that the public has not been given any credible confirmations, or evidence, for any of the inconsistent information, that has been presented in regards to this case, to make a rational response to the event.
Any specific information that is involved with the case has not been released to the public, and probably never will, now that the state’s top prosecutor and the governor’s office are working in secret with General Assembly leaders on legislation designed to withhold records related to the police investigation of the incident, including victims' photos, tapes of 911 calls, and more. Even an option to block any statement, made by any minor, was considered.
There have been several violent homicide cases in recent American history, like Sandy Hook, that have made the American people cringe in horror at the level of cruelty, and nearly all these cases had one common denominator; psychiatric drugs. The website, SSRI Stories, documents numerous violent crimes, and their association with prescription drugs.
Though it seems that psychiatric drugs may play a role in many recent cases of mass murder, the medical history of accused Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza is another aspect of the investigation that has not been shared with the public. The lack of information in regards to Lanza's possible past prescription drug history has not stopped legislators from reforming, and creating new, mental health laws, in response to the Newtown school shooting. In an article titled, "Medical Examiner Snubs Official Request for Adam Lanza Toxicology Report", journalist Kelly Patricia O’Meara correctly states that legislators "seem hell-bent on legislating increased mental health services without first having all the necessary information to make thoughtful, fact-based decisions."
Connecticut State Senators Toni Boucher (Republican), and Bob Duff (Democrat), were both guests on News 12 Focus on Connecticut, with Tom Appleby (video above), to discuss various state issues, including the Sandy Hook investigation, and the legislation that was passed as a result of the event.
Based on the conduct of these two Senators in this interview, it now seems that Connecticut politicians, who voted in favor of SB-1160, are going into damage control over the public backlash that has occurred as a result of the passing of the bill. Both Boucher, and Duff, had excuses for why, even though they may have not fully agreed, or understood, the bill, and both agree that the bill will not prevent another Sandy Hook, they still voted for it.
It has been more than a month since local police came into the home, and confiscated the guns of fifty-year-old Navy veteran, Dave Schmecker. Schmecker, when recalling that particular day, still can't seem to make sense of it all.
"I posed no threat to anyone", says the Navy Veteran, who lives alone, and doesn't have a wife, or children. Schmecker continued, "I have no psychiatric history, or criminal past."
Jeff Durkin, of We Are Change CT, and myself, went to the home of Dave Schmecker, in Naugatuck, CT, to get the story straight from the military veteran, in his own words, and capture Dave's story on video. (video above)
According to Schmecker, it all started about six months ago when he called the VA hospital to request a check on his spine, which has been giving him pain for some time. Schmecker was assuming he would be allowed to see a pain management specialist. When the hospital called the veteran back, they informed him that if he wanted to see a pain management specialist, he would first have to see a psychologist for one half-hour, and a psychiatrist for one half-hour. Schmecker refused.
"Why should I have to see a psychiatrist, and a psychologist, for a back pain?", asks Schmecker. Several months went by, and Schmecker never heard back from the VA.
Fast forward to February 5th, Schmecker was having a conversation, over the telephone with his friend, and it was decided that the two should meet. When the two friends met, they decided to attend a church, and maybe talk to a priest, for spiritual guidance. They visited a church, at random, in West Haven, which to Dave's later surprise was 'a stones throw away' from the VA hospital of West Haven. Dave had a private conversation with the priest, assuming their conversation would be kept private, and then left.
When Schmecker arrived back to his home in Naugatuck, CT, he noticed a missed called from the local police department. When he called the police department back, and asked what they had called about, he was told that his primary care physician had called the police to perform a "wellness check" on Dave, because of a peculiar message that the doctor heard on Schmecker's answering machine.
Before Schmecker left his home, earlier in the day, to meet up with his friend to attend church, not having a cell phone, he changed his answering machine message, and directed it to his friend, with whom he was just having a conversation with, just in case his friend called, after Schmecker had already left.
What did the answering machine message say? Well, according to Schmecker, the message was:
"I feel like it's poisonous staying in my house. I feel like Co-Intel-Pro is after me. I'm running."
Dave Schmecker insists "there was nothing in that message that was threatening to myself, or anyone else." Schmecker also believes that the answering machine message was just used as an excuse, and it didn't matter what the message said, the police were coming. I, Goodman, believe as Dave does, that the message doesn't seem to be of any significance in this ordeal, because, in my opinion, there is nothing in this message to cause alarm, and, also, I post worse things than that on my Facebook page, everyday.
Schmecker decided to go down to the police station and "clear this all up". Schmecker was waiting in the lobby at the police station, and nobody came to see him. The Navy veteran then decided to leave. Schmecker called the police station and told them that he was waiting, nobody came, and that he left. The police official responded that the police were called away, but they still need to perform a wellness check on Dave, so they were going to drive up to his house. Schmecker told the police that he did not want the stigma of having police in front of his house, where the neighbors would see, so he would meet them at the end of the street.
In his truck, Dave was now waiting at the end of the street for the police. When the police show up, they commandeered his vehicle, and told him he wasn't going anywhere. The police then informed the fifty-year old veteran that he was going to let them in his house, give them his weapons, and he was being forced to go a psychiatric evaluation. Schmecker was told forcefully, by the police, that "you must let us in", and "if you don't open the safe, we'll bust it open". The veteran was also led to believe that the police had a risk warrant, but later found out that they did not have a warrant.
Schmecker says he submitted to the police requests under "duress". "I live alone, I have no witnesses, if I did try to resist", says Schmecker.
The police, who Schmecker described as looking like "thugs with guns", performed a thorough search of his home, inspecting everything, rummaging through Dave's safe, taking his three guns, and sending him away in an ambulance to a psychiatric ward for three days.
The time spent in the psychiatric ward was an extremely traumatic experience. Being stuck with needles, given pills, and getting his blood pressure checked every half-hour, Schmecker says he felt he had to submit to this treatment because other patients in the ward were telling him "you better be cool here, or you'll end up in a patted room".
After 72 hours inside of the psych ward, Schmecker was released, and began trying to make sense of the event. He called his doctor and asked him why he called his house that day. According to Schmecker, the VA told him they called his house "because you hadn't renewed your medication", though they never did this before, and he has let his medications lapse in the past. On top of that, according to Schmecker, his medications did not need to be renewed.
Dave Schmecker now believes that the priest that he confided in, at the church in West Haven, called the VA hospital in West Haven, to report on Schmecker, who in turn, called his doctor at the VA of Waterbury. This would not be surprising to me, as I have reported in the past, on my experiences with learning of religious leaders in Waterbury, secretly working with the federal government.
So far this event has cost Dave Schmecker several thousands of dollars in bills from the hospital stay, the EMS ride, and more, plus an unmeasurable amount of emotional turmoil. This experience "has literally devastated me," says Schmecker.
Representing the communities of Cheshire, Southington, Wolcott, and Waterbury, State Senator Joe Markley (R-16th) has, in my opinion, one of the best records of any representative in Hartford. Markley has a history of supporting liberty, even helping to organize a protest against the creation of the state income tax in 1991, that drew 40,000 people to the State Capitol.
Elected in 2010, winning re-election in 2012, and having served one term in the mid 80's, Markley is currently in his third term as a State Senator. The Tea Party movement is credited with helping Markley get back into office. The CTMirror lists Markley's occupation as a writer, and reports, "When recruited by Tea Party activists, Markley said, he was living cheaply at a friend's apartment in western Massachusetts, working on a novel "about what I think is wrong with society."
Senator Markley has stood in opposition to many of the, in my opinion, tyrannical, anti-liberty actions being undertaken by the state. For instance, he has been one of the strongest critics of the New Britain-Hartford busway, also known as the CTFastrak, which I have written about, connecting the busway to United Nations Agenda 21, a plan to lower the standard of living in America.
Markley has also criticized Senator Gary Lebeau for his constant advocacy for big government, as well as Lebeau's involvement in the state income tax, and Lebeau's helping "push through the largest tax increase in state history." I have also criticized Senator Gary Lebeau, in the past, for his involvement in trying to bring red light cameras to the state, as well as his overall belief that he has a "significant role", as a legislator, to "change the culture" of people, and their belief about things like guns, or the way they care for their children.
When Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy announced, last month, his list of five proposals, in regards to gun control, he was criticized for trying to exploit the school shooting in Newtown, to push his own agenda. Senator Markley was among those critical of the governor. "There’s no reason to rush proposals unless there was an intent to push stricter gun control legislation from the start", Markley said, as well as implying the governor rushed his proposals because he felt the support for gun control was waning.
Even more promising are the list of bills proposed by Senator Markley for the 2013 session of the Connecticut legislature. Among them include:
Getting fluoride out of the water supply - Senate Bill 131 - AN ACT ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT TO ADD FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES.
Making sure employers can't require employees receive a flu shot - Senate Bill 55 - AN ACT PROHIBITING EMPLOYERS FROM REQUIRING EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE MANDATORY FLU SHOTS.
Stopping banks from charging a fee for check cashing - Senate Bill 107 - AN ACT PROHIBITING BANKS FROM CHARGING A FEE FOR CHECK CASHING.
Eliminating government agencies/Reducing the size of government - Senate Bill 113 & Senate Bill 258 - AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELIMINATION OF A CENTRALIZED OFFICE OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION & AN ACT ELIMINATING THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES.
The issue of marijuana legalization, and ending the war on drugs, is an important aspect for many in the fight for liberty, including myself, however I do not believe Senator Joe Markley feels the same. Last year he voted "NAY" against a medical marijuana bill, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PALLIATIVE USE OF MARIJUANA, that was eventually passed and signed by the governor. I have not seen, or heard, any comments from Joe Markley, regarding marijuana, or the war on drugs, so I can't make any definitive statements on his views towards these subjects, however it would be disappointing if we found out that Senator Markley only embraces liberty in select areas, and not in its entirety.
Here is an interview of State Senator Joe Markley, conducted last month, by the good folks at We Are Change CT, concerning Markleys proposed bill dealing with the elimination of water fluoridation in the state.
Let us hope that Senator Markley continues to be a voice for liberty, pushing for less government. We have to support people that share our beliefs, in hopes that it will encourage more people to come out, and speak up. Either way, I'll be watching, and reporting.
Related Stories:
CT State Senator Steve Cassano Wants Traffic Enforcement "Photographers" Taking Pictures Of You In Your Car - March 06, 2013 (link)
CT State Representative Stripped of Title After Lewd Comment To 17-Year-Old Girl, During Committee Meeting - March 02, 2013 (link)
Red Light Cameras In Connecticut; Corruption, Agenda 21 & the Rockefellers - March 01, 2013 (link)
No Guns for Marijuana Users; Connecticut Governor's Gun Violence Prevention Plan - February 23, 2013 (link)
Connecticut: New Controversial Bill Proposing Mandatory Periodic Inspections for Cars Over 100,000 miles - February 22, 2013 (link)
U.S. Rep. Elizabeth Esty Gets Cold, Un-Welcoming Reception At Her First Town Hall Meeting, Addressing Gun Control - February 21, 2013 (link)
Do NOT Use Water with Added-Fluoride For Your Baby - January 20, 2013 (link)
Legislators Pushing Forced Medication In Wake of CT School Shooting - December 22, 2012 (link)
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.
