Parents Beware: The United Nations Looking To Give Children of Connecticut Special "Rights"

The United Nations wants to give your children "rights".  You may think your child already has "rights", but the kind of "rights" that the UN wants to legally provide children are the kind that would bring a government agent to your house if you decide to home school your children, bring them to a religious function, or even punish them.  This agent would decide if your actions are, or were, appropriate, and in line with the child's "rights".

The plan to give all of the children of the world the same "rights", is known as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, or CRC).  It is important to understand that this plan is actually part of a much larger United Nations plan called "Agenda 21."  I have previously written on Agenda 21, and found the document to be a plan by the United Nations to gain more decision making power, or sovereignty, from countries, and create a world in which every resource, water, animals, food, etc., even human resources, and population size, is tracked, and controlled, by a group of non-elected bureaucrats at the UN, working in conjunction with big corporations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO's).  In Article 25, Section 14 of Agenda 21, governments are required to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In this analysis, I will detail a brief history of "child rights", explore the actual text of this document, the effect this convention has had on countries that have ratified it, and trace its attempted ratification in the United States, down to our own Connecticut state legislature.

History of the CRC

Decades before the UN held a convention on the rights of the child, there were various declarations made, in regards to giving children special rights, even dating back as far as 1924, adopted by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations.  In 1989, The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature.  It came into force in 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.

In the United States, under the administration of Bill Clinton, the CRC was signed, but the treaty was never submitted for Senate approval, due to opposition from some members of the Senate.  More recently, in 2009, the Obama administration revived efforts to have the United States sign onto the CRC, according to former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.  The following year, thirty-one Republican senators cosponsored a resolution opposing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The United States is only one of a few countries yet to ratify the treaty.

Important to note, potential future Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strong supporter of the treaty.

In Their Own Words

Let us examine the actual text of the treaty.  This "Convention on the Rights of the Child" treaty is 15 pages, consisting of 54 Articles, detailing the assertion that children have special rights, and the ways to implement the bureaucracy that is needed to insure that governments are "protecting" these children's rights.

When dealing with the United Nations, as with any government organization, it is important to critically examine the grammar used, see past the happy, positive sounding rhetoric, and be able to understand the actual details of a plan.  The CRC opens with a preamble that emphasizes the importance of "the protection and harmonious development of the child".  Again, this sounds nice, but we must remember, this could mean anything, and is coming from an organization that calls their violent military army, "peace keeping" troops.

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)

Newtown, CT School Shooting: Medication, Tragedy, Truth, & Conspiracy

As has been widely reported, on Friday, December 14, a gunman opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 26 people, including 20 children.  The story has been everywhere, and here at The Goodman Chronicle, I do not write a story if it is just a regurgitation of what has already been reported, so instead of give you a timeline of events, I will cover the story in a way the media is NOT covering it.  I sincerely offer my deepest condolences to everyone involved in this horrible tragedy, made many times worse due to the fact so many young innocent children were involved.

Medication

When friends and neighbors of the shooter, 20 year old Adam Lanza, and his family were interviewed, they recalled Adam as being a genius, and very bright, but "odd", displaying characteristics associated with mental illness, suffering from a personality disorder, needing special help, and being on medication.

This is what I believe the real story behind the shooter should be about, what it was that drove him to this point.  There have been several violent homicide cases in recent American history, that have made the American people cringe in horror at the level of cruelty.  Nearly all these cases had one common denominator; psychiatric drugs.  The website, SSRI Stories, documents numerous violent crimes, and their association with prescription drugs.  Columbine shooter Eric Harris was prescribed Luvox, an antidepressant medication. Andrea Yates, the woman from Texas who drowned her five children in the bathtub, was prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs, including the antidepressant Effexor, which added "homicidal ideation" to the warning label of the drug, after the Yates case.  I can keep going on, but there is a documentary titled, "The Common Denominator - Mass Murder Suicides - Prescription Drugs", that has already done a great job connecting the mass murders of recent past, to prescription drugs, that I suggest everyone watch. (video below)

Why are you not hearing about the prescription drug influence in all of these shootings?  Maybe because so many of the commercials in between television shows and news reports are for prescription drugs.