Jewish twins kept alive to be used in Mengele’s medical experiments during WWII. These children were liberated from Auschwitz in Germany by the Red Army in January 1945. Image source.
Clinton Cronies Continue to Take Control of California
by Lori Gregory
Health Impact News
SB18 Text Reveals Redundancy of Law, Danger to Parental Rights
California is ground zero for Clinton Cronies to dictate policy, and no one is more excited to lead the charge than Jim Steyer.
Steyer, founder of Common Sense Media, and brother to controversial-coal-billionaire-turned-“environmentalist” Tom Steyer, is pushing his way into the arena, intent on harnessing the voice of children as a powerful tool in politics, starting with the controversial “child bill of rights” known as SB18.
Jim, who likes being “fearless,” seems unphased by the upset parents who are expressing outrage in the medical freedom community. Having set his sights back in 2014 to get involved in the political game after watching younger brother Tom help get Virginia Governor Terry Mcauliffe narrowly elected in a race that cost Tom a mere $100 million, Jim’s political influence amongst democrats dates back further than 2014, due to his influence on Sen. Corey Booker of New Jersey, former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Chelsea Clinton — all of whom are former students of Jim’s, who also teaches at Stanford University.
Both Steyer brothers are long-term supporters and donors to the now defunct Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, and have a long history of working with Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. In fact, Tom has donated more than $198 million to candidates in California over the past 14 years, indicating these brothers are another example of super wealthy, super powerful super PACs, seeking to push agendas.
Jim partnered with Hillary Clinton for the “Too Small to Fail” initiative which, when examined closely, is clearly the inception point for what we are now seeing as SB18: an overreaching law that will force parents to adhere to and comply with Steyer et al’s definition of “appropriate” and “evidence-based” practices when it comes to his specific agenda of how to raise children. Failure to comply will put parents at risk of losing their children to the state.
At first blush, the amendments’ defining details of SB18 — which is being pushed by Big Pharma whipping boy Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) — appear altruistic in nature, utilizing language that attempts to swaddle political overreach in soothing terms like “child bill of rights.” However when taking a closer look, the amendments contain strangely redundant policy that seems to be seeking laws for innocuous rights that already exist, which begs the question, what is the real purpose for this legislation?
For example, section 1 defines the “right for a child’s parents to obtain employment opportunities that promote healthy balance between work and life.” While an obvious statement, are laws currently on the books that do NOT allow parents to promote healthy balance between work and life? Do we really need a law that says this, and does it mean that the state of California will have the right to decide if your job is acceptable enough for you to parent your children?
Moreover, the repeated use of the term “evidence-based” guidelines suggest if parents don’t follow their guidelines they will fall under scrutiny via “home visitation programs.” While the amendments use the term “voluntary” to describe participation in these said visitation programs, what happens if you don’t agree to do so? Why is Jim Steyer to decide the standards which will take away the rights of parents to make decisions about their lives and the lives of their children? These are the very serious questions that are going unanswered.
One section in particular that is especially alarming is section 1c, which is as follows:
The rights of a child’s parents to access evidence-based, voluntary home visitation programs such as comprehensive, coordinated home services that are offered to support positive parenting and improve outcomes for families including: improved maternal and child health, prevention of child injuries, child abuse and maltreatment and reduction of emergency department visits, improvement in school readiness and achievement, reduction in crime or domestic violence, improvements in family economic self-sufficiency and improvements in the coordination and referrals for other community resources and support.
Although it is written in legalistic language it is easy to see exactly what Steyer, Pan & company are really saying: Parents must, because a child has rights, allow authorities to implement home visitations to assess living conditions in order to implement medical/educational/occupational and technological standards coordinated with multiple agencies in order to ensure that parents comply with standards as set forth by the state.
“This legislation is frightening on so many levels, and is especially horrific to members of the vaccine-injured community,” said Michelle Ford, President and founder of the Vaccine Injury Awareness League (www.V-IAL.org).
“To imply that parents may have to submit to an in-home visitation program because they may be seeking an alternative to ‘evidence-based theories,’ which could easily be bought science such as mandatory vaccinations, is an outrage,” said Ford, “which is exactly what SB18 is saying. Furthermore, if any of these bureaucrats took one second to understand the life of a vaccine-injured child, which often includes complex diagnoses like tics, head banging and seizures, and what that family goes through when attempting to address these complexities, they would stop this continued push for Californians to comply with a medical utopia that simply does not exist, and instead look at the harm they are causing by injuring children through their egoistic negligence.”
Ford goes on to point out that in the early stages of vaccine injury, parents often seek emergency medical treatment in order to treat and diagnose the horrible symptoms often associated with vaccine injury. Subjecting families to increased scrutiny of in-home visits during such a stressful time while parents are simply trying to get their heads around what has happened to their kid is unconscionable.
“It definitely paves the way for egregious acts of medical kidnapping and other abuses,” said Ford.
While no one can argue that helping families who are at risk is an important and noble cause, overreaching by taking away the rights of the whole in the name of protecting a few is bad policy making.
Moreover, introduction of this legislation is confusing given that the state already has a department of child protective services which in California has an annual budget of $314 million for 2016-2017 alone. How does introducing additional restrictions on parental decision making without factoring in services that are already available and are possibly misappropriated, in the best interest of the state?
As we have continued to see increased cases of medical kidnapping and aggressive overreach of the medical system and the marriage of scientific opinion to laws in the United States, parents in California may be seeing a trend first hand that is going to be played out in the rest of the nation. Especially since 134 vaccine mandates have been introduced in this legislative session, indicating the trend for political mandates of your child’s standard of care is nowhere near slowing down.
Many have speculated that SB18 is a part of Agenda 21 and Healthy People 2020 — U.N. and U.S.-based initiatives, respectively, that are designed to corral populations into the inner cities and enforce a standard of care across the board that will implement controls that enable governments to manage portions of the population based on their standards and not the choices of the individual.
In the meantime, concerned constituents should raise their voices now in California with their lawmakers, before SB18 and the Steyer brothers tell you how to raise your kids.
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.
Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.
In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.
One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.
Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?
One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”
However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.
The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.
Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.
In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.
Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.
These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.
In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.
