Additional Titles


Three Lost Documents Discovered


By Congressman John R. Rarick, (La.)

October 5, 1971


    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, 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?


    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.


    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 alikeness 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.
    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.
    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.
    Child development proposals go further than providing for government-controlled nursery schools, Head start 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.
    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!"

Source: National Defense Committee, N.S.D.A.R.
1176 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006



By Congressman Tom Pelly (Wash.)
October 13, 1971


    The Senate and House have passed a bill that, if understood by the general public, would bring a massive outcry of opposition. It includes a $14 billion vast program of day-care and health services for children of all income levels. This sounds like a desirable plan, but what it does is cover the children of 32% of all American families, not just these in the low-income level. This means that one child out of every three will be subjected to a federally-designed, and, therefore, federally controlled program.
    Is this a means of caring for children so the mothers can work? No, it is not, and this was confirmed by Dr. Reginald S. Lourie, President of the Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, who said it was so he and his fellow doctors would have a giant laboratory to tinker with children's minds. He said, "the other important information we should keep in mind is that in the first 18 months of life, the brain is growing faster than it ever will again. It is then also more plastic and most available for appropriate experience and corrective interventions."
    Another of this plan's advocates, Dr. Urie Bonfenbrenner, has praised the communal method of raising children, saying, "communal forms of upbringing have an unquestionable superiority over all others. When these contracted families (i.e. those who have placed their children in the communal institutions of upbringing) recognize that it is not sensible to expend so much work on maintaining an independent household for just two people, the family as an economic unit, having fused with other families and become incorporated into a large economic collective, will dissolve within the context of the future social commune."
    These are just two of the supporters of the child care provisions of the bill. Even HEW Secretary Elliot Richardson has admitted the bill is not to free mothers for work. He calls it "a great opportunity... to invest in the development of the next generation."


Source: National Defense Committee, N.S.D.A.R.

1176 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006




By Congressman John G. Schmitz, (Cal)
October 13, 1971
    On September 30, by a margin of just three votes, the House of Representatives passed one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever to come before Congress - and the competition for that title is keen.
    This tremendously significant and far-reaching legislation was brought to the House Floor with only 24 hours' notice and without benefit of a printed committee report. Normal procedures in  handling legislation were thus bypassed and the time available to consider the bill was totally inadequate.
    The Senate passed a substantially similar bill September 9. In view of the slight differences between the Senate and House versions, there is little hope that the really objectionable features will be removed in conference committee. The bill can only be kept from becoming law now by a Presidential veto.
    The Comprehensive Child Development Act is explicitly aimed at children from one to five, below school age. It sets up all the machinery and the financing for a massive governmental invasion of this last stronghold of the home, hitherto untouched even by the immense apparatus of compulsory public education. The fact that the new programs are not immediately to be made compulsory is hardly reassuring to those of us who have watched so many new State and Federal programs begin as "voluntary" and then, once established and increasingly power-hungry, come to be regarded as the natural and inevitable repositories of a steadily broadening scope of compulsory authority.
    Therefore, the most important fact about the comprehensive child development programs authorized by this bill is not the powers now given to the agencies that will run them, but the purposes that are set for them. The bill lists 12 separate purposes for which Federal "child development" funds may be used, including (in addition to basic day care) "comprehensive physical and mental health, social, and cognitive development services... specially designed health, social, and educational programs including after school, summer, weekend, vacation and overnight programs... medical, psychological, educational, and other appropriate diagnosis and identification of visual, dental, hearing, speech, nutritional, and other physical, mental and emotional barriers to full participation in child development programs, with appropriate treatment to overcome such barriers... utilization of child advocates to work on behalf of children and parents to secure them full access to other services, programs, or activities intended for the benefit of children."
    All of this refers primarily to children under the age of six, and all of it is to be carried out by the government in conforming with policies laid down by a New Office of Child Development in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare which this bill would create.


    The potential for abuse should be obvious simply from reading the list of purposes. No facet of a child's life is omitted. The intention is clearly to put government in place of the parent - the ultimate threat to the family.


Source: National Defense Committee, N.S.D.A.R

1176 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006