Harvard Law Prof: Every Family Should Be Under Mandatory Government Surveillance
If you’ve never read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, you should, especially if your view of the world today is as tainted as my own about government intrusion, overreach and oppression. I’m not gonna lie and tell you it’s an easy read. At times, it is a ponderous work chock full of long descriptive passages that rival Tolkien’s environmental depictions in Middle Earth. The work, though, does come full circle literally to a single sentence near the end of the novel (and you can’t simply skip to the end to appreciate the enormity of the subject matter or its intent), but the fact is that after reading this novel, you’ll have a much clearer understanding of why government is the way it is, why it feels compelled to remain that way, despite heavy opposition from the voting public, and why the government, like a cornered animal, will lunge outward at its attackers and fight any way it deems necessary to ensure its survival.
There are easier reads. Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell or Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. Or if you’re the movie type of person, The Purge, Gattaca, The Giver or Logan’s Run. All of these are superb examples of government power gone seriously awry while the rights of the individual have been forever altered to non-sequiturs in the mainstream thought.
Recently, another Orwellian nasty has been propagating the insistence that government is far superior in judgment of who should be parents and who should not. More precisely, this law professor is insisting that government should actually, literally choose which parent receives which baby!
When it comes to arrogance, few can argue that Progressives don’t embody the very definition. There is a decided edge to every opinion they hold regarding social behavior and cultural upbringing. Despite the fact that they are abnormal and in every way contrary to human interaction, Progressives regard themselves as morally and philosophically engineered to be the prime decision-makers in social relationships.
The most arrogant of all these opinions centers around who should and shouldn’t be parents. Not only do they question the validity of a human being’s right to procreate (a right given to him/her directly from God), but they question as well why the government doesn’t seize children from their biological parents or their legal guardians and mandate who should actually raise them!
Of course, this thought is anathema to every natural law that exists on the planet throughout recorded history. Let’s not forget, however, that Leftists don’t care a wit about history, God-given rights, or factual evidence to prove that the parent/child relationship is one of the most significant interactions that impacts a child’s development throughout life.
Elizabeth Bartholet is a law professor at Harvard University who espouses these beliefs and more. At the present time, her exposure to impressionable children who are on their way to be the best of the best in their life endeavors is so formidable that it won’t be long before her radical far-Leftist thought patterns will be permanently subliminally embedded in the minds of these kids right out of high school.
In a recent article presented by Health Impact News, Richard Wexler, Executive Director of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, wrote of some radical views of the family by Elizabeth Bartholet, who is a Professor of Family Law at Harvard Law School:
Bartholet’s ideas are so extreme that they include requiring every family with a young child to open itself to mandatory government surveillance. (That’s not an exaggeration. There’s a summary of her views in the section of this post to the NCCPR Child Welfare Blog called “Harvard’s resident extremist” and the details are in her own book, Nobody’s Children, pp. 170, 171).
Bartholet has worked with another radical whose views we have exposed here at Health Impact News, Professor James Dwyer of William and Mary College. Dwyer believes that there is no inherent right to parent one’s own children, and has stated:
The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.
One of Dwyer’s books was even the required text for a course on Family Law that Bartholet taught.
This has always been a sore spot of contention for me and many other writers who have struggled throughout our careers to crack into the book trade. When a novelist writes a novel, the greatest hope he/she can have is that the book is read, first and foremost. If the book makes money for the novelist, awesome. If not, oh well, you just keep trying.
For professors and social science administrators, the idea of having as many people read the book is not a matter of writing materials that will cause the reading audience to reach out and search for the material based on its merit of thought or its innovative structure. The idea is to force that book upon people who are paying for a good education and, instead of having them afforded the freedom of independent thought and perception (as what universities were originally conceived to supply) and to ensure that their book and its ultimate agenda is indicated as mandatory reading for the course. This way, the professor not only feeds his/her own ego (which is always sizeable), but they can also portray a clear idea of what bent the students MUST espouse and regurgitate back to the teacher in good form in order to pass the course.
It’s a wonderful set-up and ensures that the professor is perpetuating a set of ideals in the minds of the students that align specifically with the radicalization of our children in college. Hence, the popularity of Antifa on campuses.
Read on the following page about how one way for the ideas and popular radical far-Left views of professors are being implemented by doctors who now have the legal justification for stealing children through a practice that critics are calling “medical kidnapping!”Share on Facebook Tweet about this