Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Federalizing 4 year olds


42 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/federalizing-4-year-olds

 

 

So I am not thrilled with the HHS/Obot plan! I don't want the federal government coming into my house to check on my children or grandchildren. This is total takeover of the family unit by the Obots and HHS. What do you all think? How are you going to feel if the federal government knocks on your door as soon as your child is born and starts doing "home visits", before you even have a chance to even get you child to sleep through the night? I think that this will start making people go back to having children at home and not recording their births. This is not only wrong it is dangerous.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

 

Behold the voice of "Big Brother". 'Nuff said.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Our constitution prohibits unlawful search. In the us they cant just come in unless they have reports of abuse etc. Amor you may like that kind of thing where you are but it is against the laws of my country. Therefore it is quite anathema to us.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Communism.....

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The state is big brother. Parents are more important than teachers or God forbid, government representatives.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do not be deceived; the enemy wants to take over in a very innocent way.  Submit to God.  Resist the devil, and he will flee.  Father God, have mercy on these people and their wicked agendas in governments all over the world.  Protect our families, cover us with the blood of the Lamb.  Thank you Lord.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

Children are members of families and unless there is abuse the government has no right at all to come into someones home.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Our constitution prohibits unlawful search. In the us they cant just come in unless they have reports of abuse etc. Amor you may like that kind of thing where you are but it is against the laws of my country. Therefore it is quite anathema to us.

Thank you Jadey!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Do not be deceived; the enemy wants to take over in a very innocent way.  Submit to God.  Resist the devil, and he will flee.  Father God, have mercy on these people and their wicked agendas in governments all over the world.  Protect our families, cover us with the blood of the Lamb.  Thank you Lord.

Amen!!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

       Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoaglund embodies the globalist attitude when he stated in a radio interview:

 

                "Fundamental, Bible-believing people [Jews and Christians] do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them to be part of a one-world global society, and their children will not fit in."

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

Abuse is the exception, not the rule.  The government has no business interfering with how anyone raises their kids.  If there is a clear case of sexual or physical abuse, of course someone must step in, but in all other cases, I am opposed to the government getting involved.  It doesn't take a village to raise children, it takes a family, the child's family.  I am even opposed to the government telling parents they must send their children to school and interfering with the family's medical decisions for their children.  The government needs to keep their nose out of our business. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

 

Children are not the property of a government either. This might be okay in your culture, amor (not sure what culture that is) but it's not okay here.  In fact, it would be illegal here. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."

 

Vladimir Lenin

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoaglund embodies the globalist attitude when he stated in a radio interview:

"Fundamental, Bible-believing people [Jews and Christians] do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them to be part of a one-world global society, and their children will not fit in."

I've been trying to get that across to people for about 40yeasr...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

       Nebraska State Senator Peter Hoaglund embodies the globalist attitude when he stated in a radio interview:

 

                "Fundamental, Bible-believing people [Jews and Christians] do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them to be part of a one-world global society, and their children will not fit in."

We have every right to pass the truth of the Bible down to our children and grandchildren. They are the ones who have no right to interferr in our family units.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Children are not the property of their parents and whilst they are responsible for their care  and upbringing, there is a need for other social structures that both support the parents and protect the children from potential abuse. We al know that sometimes horrible things happen in families.

Abuse is the exception, not the rule.  The government has no business interfering with how anyone raises their kids.  If there is a clear case of sexual or physical abuse, of course someone must step in, but in all other cases, I am opposed to the government getting involved.  It doesn't take a village to raise children, it takes a family, the child's family.  I am even opposed to the government telling parents they must send their children to school and interfering with the family's medical decisions for their children.  The government needs to keep their nose out of our business. 

 

Amen

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oakwood you like me live in a society where every child receives a mandatory visit from  a  Health Visitor 2 or 3 times in their pre-school years. It seems a sensible policy to me . If you think it's tyrannous, what are you doing to resist this tyranny?

 

With regard to non-British posters, Since acts of great evil occur in a small minority of families,  society has some obligation to take modest measures to identify that evil. As it is  in all countries far too many children are abused or killed by parents.

 

As to medical care, well adults can make their own decisions, but I don't see why the children of Jehovah's witnesses should be allowed to die or the daughters of North African Muslims be infibulated just because of the stupidity of their parents. Presumably, a child's right to life doesn't cease at birth..

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Amor, I assume you are referring to your NHS?  It looks like we might be heading in your direction, but I hope not.  The position of far too many people is that the government (social workers, government health workers, etc.) knows best and always acts with the purest of motives.  I strenuously disagree with that.  You made this statement:

 

...society has some obligation to take modest measures to identify that evil.

 

 

If by "society" you mean a faceless government bureaucracy then I think you are wrong.  But if by "society" you mean neighbors, family, and other people who may know the situation in question, then I would agree.  A moral and civilized society cares for each other.  When you pass off societal oblignations to a central bureaucracy, made up of people nobody knows, and that establishes it's own arbitrary rules for society to abide by, then you take away the freedom of self governance, something Americans (used to, at least) cherish.  And eventually you get a society incapable of making decisions for itself, determining what's best for itself, and they will always be looking to the authorities for approval or living in fear that they are breaking some rule or another.  To that kind of pathetic existance, I say, "No thank you."

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The entire article can be broken down to it's lowest common denominator........This is what the socialists want: State being the parent and teacher, moms and dads are just breeders.  (from one of the comments below the article)   :help:  Jesus come quickly !

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Blessings Everyone...

     I have to agree with alien,,,this sounds like5 communism to me........Actually I am in agreement with every American here..,children are not the property of their parents?I would have liked to see what my mom & dad would have had to say about that -lol   and I felt the same way about my child..."MINE"!!!!!!The same way we are Gods children,His little ones are given to us by Him.......that makes them "ours"(for a time) & I do not care what anyone says......Morning Glory,thats right,they are certainly not the property of the gov't!!!!!

    Oh boy,that obama & whatever he serves(surely not our Loving Father)would love to start programming our children right out of the womb........Lord God,we stand in the gap for our nation & dedicate America to You,Bless us Father....in Jesus Mighty Name.

                                                                                                                                                        With love-in Christ,Kwik

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They're  neither the property of the state nor the parents, but individuals with the right to be protected from potential abuse(sexual, physical or emotional. Since most abuse is committed not by strangers but by family members we need proactive strategies to protect those children in families where abuse occurs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They're  neither the property of the state nor the parents, but individuals with the right to be protected from potential abuse(sexual, physical or emotional. Since most abuse is committed not by strangers but by family members we need proactive strategies to protect those children in families where abuse occurs.

 

Again, that is fine for your country. But not in my country. This violates our constitution.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They're  neither the property of the state nor the parents, but individuals with the right to be protected from potential abuse(sexual, physical or emotional.

 

Since most abuse is committed not by strangers but by family members we need proactive strategies to protect those children in families where abuse occurs.

 

~

 

Amen~! Children Do Not Belong With Government

Especially Not With A Wicked Godless Heartless Government

 

A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue. Proverbs 17:4

 

Thursday 26 February 2009

 

The figures, revealed in a parliamentary answer to the Liberal Democrats, show that 1.09 million DNA profiles of people aged under 18 were held on the database with 337,000under 16.

 

The Met police has added by far the largest number of profiles to the register, 117,000 boys and 33,000 girls. The second biggest number is in the West Midlands force area, 49,000 and 17,000 respectively.

 

The Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: "We already know that guilt and innocence are of no concern to ministers, but clearly neither is the negative effect the database has on children.

 

"It is unacceptable to keep the DNA of children on record in perpetuity for the most minor of offences. Unless convicted of a sexual or violent offence, under-16s should not have their DNA stored on the database."

 

Around 570,000 child profiles have been added in the last five years. Campaigners blame changes in police tactics to meet targets for the rise in the number of children on the register.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/27/dna-database-children-criminal-record

 

God Bless Britannia

 

Deliver me, O my God, out of the hand of the wicked, out of the hand of the unrighteous and cruel man. Psalms 71:4

 

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent

The Guardian,

Monday 3 March 2014

 

A senior aide to David Cameron resigned from Downing Street last month the day before being arrested on allegations relating to child abuse images.

 

Patrick Rock, who was involved in drawing up the government's policy for the large internet firms on online pornography filters, resigned after No 10 was alerted to the allegations.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/03/special-advisor-pm-arrested

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

They're  neither the property of the state nor the parents, but individuals with the right to be protected from potential abuse(sexual, physical or emotional. Since most abuse is committed not by strangers but by family members we need proactive strategies to protect those children in families where abuse occurs.

 

You're position presuposes a couple of things:  (1)  All parents are potential child abusers.  This is absurd.  I find it hard to believe that parents in Great Britain are more predisposed to abusing their children than American parents!  That's a terrible indictment of your society, Amor.  I've spent some time in the UK, and it seems to me (shock) that moms (or "mums") and dads are just as loving and protective of their kids there as we are on this side of the pond.  (2)  Government agencies are better equipped to deal with abusive parents than society at large is.  Sorry, in my experience the only thing the government does with any kind of skill or expertise is collect taxes.  A government agency doesn't give two darns about anybody.  I know a social worker locally and she tells me she is overworked and underpaid and cannot (her word, not mine) care as she should for the children she is charged to care for!   She's not a bad person; it's the nature of government.  Furthermore, it's a sad, sad society that merely assumes abuse is going on, so that state inspectors, under the guise of the NHS, are sent it!  Talk about offensive!

 

I do agree that abusive parents or family members need to be dealt with legally and deserve to feel the full weight of the law, but not at the cost of the intrinsic freedom every citizen has.  Your attitude is one of the reasons for America's existance, by the way.  I suggest that incidents of child abuse are higher in societies where the role of parents is diminished in favor of that of the State.

 

By the way, the Biblical role of chidren and parents is that children ARE the property of its parents, as suggested by 1 Samuel 1:27, 28--

 

I asked him to give me this child, and he has given me my request; 28and now I am giving him to the Lord for as long as he lives.” So she left him there at the Tabernacle for the Lord to use.  (TLB)

 

 

So, amor, you are in error suggesting the federalizing of children.  Sorry, the Bible trumps anything any person or government may think.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0