Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMac

dys used vaccinations as an example. The specific, and very much related, problem in this case were the SSRI meds the child was forced to take.

---

After having asked for treatment.

As I already asked, in her State is there a requirement on the part of health care providers to report parents who refuse treatment that's been determined by the health care provider to be necessary?
...and if those regulations exist, is the mothers status such that she has previously bound herself to abide by those regulations?

http://yhvh.name/?w=1114
PARENS PATRIAE... GOVERNMENT AS PARENT


http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14376

States with Religious and Philosophical Exemptions from School Immunization Requirements
March 2011

All fifty states have legislation requiring specified vaccines for students. Although exemptions vary from state to state, all school immunization laws grant exemptions to children for medical reasons. Almost all states, except Mississippi and West Virginia, grant religious exemptions for people who have religious beliefs against immunizations. Twenty states allow philosophical exemptions for those who object to immunizations because of a personal, moral or other beliefs.

Apparently, had the lady claimed an exemption she could have avoided all of her troubles.

Instead, she chose to make a legal determination that wasn't in her best interest.

Ignorance or freedom.....pick one or the other.

Thanks for the informative discussion here 'both sides'. Basically I think your both right. The root problem here is a faulty medical system insisting on a treatment with significant probability, such as in this family's case, of making a person's health worse, and for no direct benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keehah

Thanks for the informative discussion here 'both sides'. Basically I think your both right. The root problem here is a faulty medical system with significant probability, such as in this family's case, of making a person's health worse, not better.

---

Which is why I previously posted that her attry should introduce as evidence the fact the the fed gov hasn't approved that medication in children.
http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthre...l=1#post447617

Remember, I never said I agreed with the medical facility/CPS actions, but rather only tried to explain the mechanism at work.
If you don't understand the mechanism at work, you're liable to pop off a cap in a frustrated and mis-guided attempt at "fixing" the situation.
...and I'd really like it if people avoided doing that, as it doesn't help at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dys

It is not a contract because there is no signature attached to it. And even if there were a signature attached to it, it STILL wouldn't be a valid contract for 2 reasons:
1. coercion.
2. the school has 0 authority to enforce policy that is against the law (example: forced vaccinations). The real law, not the fake law, btw.





This is a lie. Nowhere in that link did the school ask the parent to make a legal determination of status.



You most certainly do NOT have to agree to their rules, not if their rules are against the law.

dys

---

Dys, don't get trolled away from your main focus.

The school cannot write or enforce Law.
They can write and enforce Policy.
If their policy is that all kids must be vaccinated to attend, they can (and will) enfore that.
The Government has made it illegal for your child to not attend a BWI.


That's why she had an armed standoff with NWO pigs. Her house wasn't surrounded by armed teachers who were trying to enforce a law, the NWO pigs are the strongarm to enforce vaccinations, by way of making truancy illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by po boy

Good morning oh grouchy nemesis, hehe

It is well know that those who sleep on the duty to protect rights will lose them all. American's have been asleep at the wheel for far to long and now are not happy with the results and are looking for anyone to blame but themselves for the loss of rights they themselves failed to protect.
In a happy fun fun world there are no evil plots and planners but realistically it's always been a rugged struggle.

You can call me names and bitch about the evils of the state all you want, but until you quit CONSENTING to be governed and learn how to defend yourself from the tyrants without violence you'll remain a slave raising the states kids.

---

Good morning, Joe King Parrot, and well paid .gov agent


I would actually assume that you and Joe were one-in-the-same, if it weren't for your IP addresses.
So then, for the last time, for the sake of the lurkers, I will point out that you are using the same arguements as your "Thanks buddy".

1) You are blaming the victim. (The people who are losing their freedoms UNKNOWINGLY because of a group of elite that work in SECRECY.

2) You are exonerating the conspirators. It is that simple.

So I will state that you are "way the fuck off" on all of this. Way off.
If you don't understand how or why you are way off, allow me to use a simple example.

If you were sitting in your livingroom and a man quietly broke into your house, crept up behind you, pounced out from the shadows and knocked you out (Totally blindsided you) before you had a chance to react, and then robbed you, you are not to blame.
You would be the victim of that mans plan, which he hatched and carried out in secrecy.

When you woke up, you would be pissed, and you would seek justice, and you might even take some form of action, but you certainly would not be to blame for letting the mugging happen.

And don't bother trying to muddy shit up by blah blah blabbing about how "You shouldn't have been sitting there without an alarm system" or whatever approach your supervisor tells you to take.

Not everyone is tricked by your bullshit circle talk.

I reiterate:

1) You are blaming the victim in every situation involving the conspiracy.
2) You are exonerating the conspirators.

It really is that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

Dys, don't get trolled away from your main focus.

The school cannot write or enforce Law.
They can write and enforce Policy.
If their policy is that all kids must be vaccinated to attend, they can (and will) enfore that.
The Government has made it illegal for your child to not attend a BWI.


That's why she had an armed standoff with NWO pigs. Her house wasn't surrounded by armed teachers who were trying to enforce a law, the NWO pigs are the strongarm to enforce vaccinations, by way of making truancy illegal.

---

She was the one trying to get her kid into school, not trying to keep her out of it.
ie where did you get the impression that she was keeping her child from attending school? ie that the police were there enforcing a truancy violation?


Oh wait, you can't see this post, can you? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joe King

Remember, I never said I agreed with the medical facility/CPS actions, but rather only tried to explain the mechanism at work.
If you don't understand the mechanism at work, you're liable to pop off a cap in a frustrated and mis-guided attempt at "fixing" the situation.
...and I'd really like it if people avoided doing that, as it doesn't help at all.

---

Do the cops get the Nuremberg defense shipping family members off for this? If not using force to stop the significant probability of maiming of one's children then when?

But yes, for those families, it will make things much much worse.

In the longer term, the system in such case could decide to stop enforcing mandatory health maiming treatments with no direct benefit on aware parent's kids, or they will have to demonize parents with kids as terrorists and extremists. That could blow out the usefulness of the terrorism meme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

I will state that you are "way the fuck off" on all of this. Way off.
If you don't understand how or why you are way off, allow me to use a simple example.

If you were sitting in your livingroom and a man quietly broke into your house, crept up behind you, pounced out from the shadows and knocked you out (Totally blindsided you) before you had a chance to react, and then robbed you, you are not to blame.
You would be the victim of that mans plan, which he hatched and carried out in secrecy.

---

Your analogy is flawed in that none of the regulations the lady was trying to comply with were enacted in secrecy.
Try try again. lol

Quote:

---

When you woke up, you would be pissed, and you would seek justice, and you might even take some form of action, but you certainly would not be to blame for letting the mugging happen.

---

Of course not. In your analogy the perp committed a crime. Several of them, actually.

Quote:

---

And don't bother trying to muddy shit up by blah blah blabbing about how "You shouldn't have been sitting there without an alarm system" or whatever approach your supervisor tells you to take.

---

You're the one muddying stuff up.

Quote:

---

Not everyone is tricked by your bullshit circle talk.

I reiterate:

1) You are blaming the victim in every situation involving the conspiracy.
2) You are exonerating the conspirators.

It really is that simple.

---

At what point does personal responsibility come into play relative to knowing what you are and what it is you are asking for when applying foir gov benefits?


Oh wait, you've still got me on ignore, right? lol