UPDATED: I believe the parent's rights are absolute, except in the case of crime. If a crime is committed, the police or investigators should be involved, as with any adult. Aside from this, the government has no business interfering with how parents raise their children. What looks like a "social good" is the exact opposite. In this case, the government is using 1 case in their favor, in an attempt to convince the public that government has a right to veto the parent's rights. What they do not disclose, is how much harm they have inflicted upon children by needlessly overstepping their boundaries and using power obtained by winning public favor (in a case like this) to usurp family rights overall. England is supposedly not as bad as the United States, in this regard, however, it appears they are seeking more power to enable them to take children for government guinea pigs because apparently they are feeling outnumbered. It is even possible that Sally works for the government herself and has reacted publicly to enable the English government to test-case and set precedents to give the English government more power over the children of English citizens. I don't think so, but these kinds of things are done. Her former husband is a "consultant" and everyone knows what that means in Virginia, U.S.A. Former "consultant" (undercover CIA) Valerie Plame said, "consultant" is another word for "CIA operative".
Once the English government begins winning cases to assert their power over the parent's rights, in a case made to be as dramatic as this one, with sympathy for the boy's life, they take that power, and use it in other ways. It leads directly down the slippery slope of "abuse of authority" which is what the United States does every single day. Why Sally would want to come to "America" is beyond me, when it would be no better for her son here. I mean, if she's helping MK-ULTRA for English and U.S. governments, to assign their governments more power for using kids for mind control and research, then I'm sure there is a rewarding career for her here. It's not like intelligence parties haven't been known to practically sacrifice their own children "for the sake of the government". These are the people governments like to hire--those who will put their own children at risk to do favors for the government. It's not God-Family-Country for some of them.
These governments use cases like this one, to start, to make claims of "unusual intervention" and this paves their path to legal precedents and notches in the belt for weakening family rights and increasing government power. You do NOT want the government in your bedroom, or kidnapping your children. After they take your rights away and force treatment you don't want for your child, they are applying that same power to smaller matters, and claiming they have the right to take your child from you because you are not a good-enough-housekeeper or they disagree with your activism and feel that you are "not a good example" or "role model" for a citizen. They claim the parents shouldn't be homeschooling and are putting their child at "risk" and that the poverty of the single mother is putting the child "at risk" and therefore, the government has the right to steal your child from you, because "GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST", NOT YOU. The government wants you to think they "love" your child. The government doesn't love your child. YOU love your child. The government loves your money, and the power they can obtain by taking your children from you to use for government programs.
England must be hard up. They took Katie Middleton afterall. England used to be a country that held out against crimes against children and seemed to try to be christian and they get their royals hooked up to drug dealers now. Kind of like Obama's nomination of John Kerry, when his son is a known drug dealer. My Dad said should the father be blamed for the son? No, of course not, and Biblically even, of course not. However, if you have someone who is in that high of a position, with tentacles into drugs, and their child isn't going to jail, you know they are corrupt. It means the Middletons have gotten away with crimes that no other British citizen would get away with, and Kerry's son has gotten away with the same, so what confidence can citizens have in their right to "equal treatment under the law?" None. Gary Middleton was not even investigated by the British police. It was an undercover reporter that caught him and the British law enforcement did nothing about it. If you do not have "equal treatment under the law" by law enforcement, it means the government is discriminating against certain individuals and protecting others. Unequal treatment is when Kate snorts cocaine and Smitty-the-common-man-down-the-street snorts cocaine and the police smile at Kate and hook her up to a royal wedding while taking Smitty to jail. It's the equivalence of having both of them in the same room, doing exactly the same thing, and the police know it, but they reward Katie for committing crimes and then grossly punish Smitty for the exact same thing. It's a double standard, which is the kind of standard that the Middleton family has held high for decades. Unequal treatment under the law goes hand-in-hand with abuse of authority and this goes directly to corruption of the justice system and empowerment and corruption of government.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251927/Cancer-boys-mother-Sally-Roberts-defiant-court-rules-Neon-radiotherapy.html
My son's school district is part of Leavenworth School District, and Leavenworth is where I am told there are many high level military intelligence officials. Cashmere and Wenatchee are also packed with former CIA officials. My son is being used for U.S. government research and mind control programs, even in his class, and his school is funded by black operation money taken from taxpayers. They love Kate Middleton because she is a drug dealer and a spy for the United States. Her family has been working for the U.S. for decades.
http://www.cascadesd.org/
This is the site for the school principal of Peshastin-Dryden Elementary. According to the research I found by someone else online, Tim Lawless is connected to Canada. You know, Middleton's fort. This individual says they did research to connect the Lawless's to the child Sex Crime scandal in Wenatchee, which was used as an opportunity to steal children from parents for mind control. http://scaredmonkeys.net/index.php?topic=5525.0;wap2
William Bryan Lawless
B 31 Aug 1897 New Brunsiwick Canada
D 15 Aug 1975 Okanogan, Brewster WA
married
Gladys M Thayer
B 1898
Child 1 male Lawless
***************************************************************************************
I just read the article about UK Sally Robert's being forced to take her son to radiotherapy treatments. I support her rights and her parental rights as well as the right to her son to be under the care and guardianship of his mother, not the "state".
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/12/21/uk-mother-loses-legal-fight-to-stop-son-radiation-for-cancer/?test=latestnews
The "state" is wrong.
It is against moral and civil law to force someone to submit to medical interventions when those interventions have proven side-effects and do not have any kind of safety record established.
These British doctors have accused Roberts of choosing "experimental" treatments with her son, when what she has chosen has less side effects and risk than the "experimental" treatments that the British doctors are forcing upon her son. It is not their child. The government has no say in the healthcare management of children where the parent has full rights to veto their opinions.
A parent is the President of Their Child.
If the Congress and the House of Reps and others make recommendations, that's fine. But this is a matter that the parent has a full right to veto. When the government begins to override the right of the parent, and makes itself guardian in place of the parent, this is when civil rights have been proven lost.
The right of the child...? Okay, when Britain and the U.S. decide children have full voting rights, then they can start making arguments about "the right of the child". Because the United States and the government of Britain have not given children full rights as citizens, to vote for one thing, they have no right to talk about how they are supporting a child's rights. The government cannot compel an adult to have treatments like this because an adult is believed capable of making decisions for themselves, for their own lives. A child is under the guardianship of that same adult, that the government has granted rights to independence to, and with respect to parenting their own children. The government cannot override the inherent natural rights of a parent to make decisions in their child's best interests, unless the government is willing to grant a child the right to vote. That way, the children can vote for officials who feel they have a right to govern them and dictate to them how to live their lives.
Hypocrites. The U.S. and England and Canada are hypocrites when it comes to "children's rights".
If the government is going to replace the parent and use children for research, and force them to take medications or be subjected to treatment they don't want for themselves, then the children have a right to vote for who is calling the shots.
The government has never had the right to replace a parent.
This has been a slow degenerative movement since maybe only the 1940s. War. It is a decision based on War theories and the desire to take children from their parents to use them for research for government war purposes. It is illegal.
The only time the government has a right to intervene is if parents have died, and there is no surviving relative. At that point, adoption may be necessary. This changed only due to the demands made by corrupt intelligence and military officials who wanted to find a way to steal children from parents to give them as guinea pigs to medical doctors, scientists, and the government.
Shame on you.
At the same time these governments began stretching their long arms across the flag and Constitution, to kidnap children and to reduce the power of parents in favor of the power of government, they did not improve "children's rights". They have demoralized nations by this aggregious behavior. They did not improve the rights of children, they replaced the parent with themselves. This is not a transfer of betterment. It is a transfer of power.
In this transfer of power, where the government chooses to replace the parent with itself, the government has not transfered the right to vote to the children. If the government decides it will manage the children, the children have a right to say who is managing them.
The government has been overstepping their powers for decades. These collective governments decided they needed kids to experiment on, like Russia and China (communist) countries had. The communists had easier access to the children because they claimed they, as the government, were the guardians of children and parents, and their power was above that of the citizen, over their own lives. So Russia and China had plenty of children to research with.
The United States, England, and Canada are condemned for following in these footsteps. They are giving over their own children like cannabals.
If the U.S. was obeying their own Constitution, when they transfered the power of the parent to be replaced by power of government, they would be required to give children the right to vote. Even the mentally ill adult or "incompetent" adult has the right to vote.
The government does not have the right to involuntary detain adults for mental illness, nor do they have the right to kidnap children from their parents, or transfer power of the parent to themselves.
The harm that could come to a few children at the management of unwise parents, is far less than the harm of a Monstrous Government that is so out-of-control, it is kidnapping and using hundreds, if not thousands of unwitting children in illegal experiments and research and mind control programs.
The right of the parent is absolute.
The state is also violating this family's religious rights, whether or not it is a recognized religion.
I just read another article and Robert's was born in New Zealand. So she is possibly not a British citizen (but she might be if she married a British guy) and her son, if born in Britain, is a British citizen.
Is Neon voting for the members of Parliament? Does he have the right to vote in Britain? He has been living with his mother, and she is his legal guardian. She has absolute right to decisions about treatment for her son.
I think they are torturing Neon with experimental projects that have not been effective. Not only that, if they "didn't get it all" the first time, what gives them the right to sit back and monitor how quickly the rest grows before demanding they cut into his head again? They are treating Neon like a cadaver.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment