LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Index du Forum


 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   MembresMembres   GroupesGroupes   S’enregistrerS’enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

Aller à la page: <  1, 2
Sujet précédent :: Sujet suivant  
Auteur Message

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Ven 6 Mar - 06:10 (2015)    Sujet du message: VACCINE WAG THE DOG UNDERWAY TO TAKE AWAY PARENTS' RIGHTS Répondre en citant


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f24oiDCynYk&list=LL0aav0Ov6NVK6R3rmIWO1…

Revenir en haut

MessagePosté le: Ven 6 Mar - 06:10 (2015)    Sujet du message: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 28 Avr - 07:18 (2015)    Sujet du message: DOCUMENTAIRE LES BEBES VOLES L'INCROYABLE Répondre en citant


Ce problème est global

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxhhqsXxswg


Film basé sur le documentaire

VIDEO : http://streamcomplet.com/les-enfants-voles/

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Dim 7 Juin - 15:59 (2015)    Sujet du message: GOVERNMENT TO MONITOR FAMILY 'SPIRITUALITY' Répondre en citant


Critics warn of 'dark, deeply worrying and insidious development'

Published: 15 hours ago

Bob Unruh

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

Under a new law in Scotland, parents will be reported to authorities for not giving a child enough “love, hope and spirituality,” according to a government health adviser who is helping craft rules for the law, which is scheduled to go into effect next year.

Bob Fraser said at a conference for childcare workers in Edinburgh last month that the “named person” portion of the Children and Young People Act is about ensuring “positive well-being” for all children not just for those identified as “in need.”

A spokesman for a campaign opposing the law, No to Named Persons, called Fraser’s stated intentions for the law a “dark, deeply worrying and insidious development.”

“Apparently, the named person will police family life according to some ever-shifting ‘happiness index.’ It’s an impossible standard for parents to measure up to,” the spokesman said, according to the Scottish Daily Mail.

Liz Smith, Scottish Conservative party spokeswoman, said it’s “exactly the sort of nonsense which critics of the named person scheme feared would happen.”

“Parents will be horrified at the suggestion of being targeted because a state guardian doesn’t regard their home as sufficiently spiritual,” she said, according to the Scottish Press.

WND has reported extensively on Scotland’s “named person” plan, which requires that a government worker be named to oversee the development of every child under age 18.

See what today’s schools actually are demanding, in “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.”

The government worker would have the authority to make decisions for the child that the parents might oppose.

A judge earlier dismissed a challenge to the law, but the U.K.’s Christian Institute is appealing the decision.

Fraser, who has the title Getting it Right for Every Child health adviser in the Scottish government’s Better Life Chances unit, said the new law is about “linking positive well-being and positive outcomes for all children.”

“Not just the usual suspects, not just those we identify as those in need,” he said.

“Every child deserves to have positive well-being. We have had suggestions of different indicators of love, hope and spirituality. I am not wedded. The Act is there at the moment. But in a few years, if people feel it is right, they should change that.”

The Christian Institute was part of the team that challenge the law in court, and Queen’s Counsel Aidan O’Neill explained the case.

“[It's a] Big Brother law which threatens every family in the land and diminishes the rights and responsibilities of mums and dads to look after their children as they see fit,” he said.

In his ruling, the judge said it’s “a matter for the legislature to decide whether the well-being of children is likely to be promoted by having a near-universal system for appointing Named Persons.”

Among the many concerns about the law is that teachers will be encouraged to contact the appointed government guardian regarding sex-education issues rather than a child’s parents.

“It beggars belief that a teacher with concerns about the well-being of a child – including underage sexual activity, which is a serious criminal offense – should be told by the government to pass on those concerns to the Named Person and not the child’s parents,” the No to Named Persons campaign said in a statement.

WND reported the Christian Institute’s director, Colin Hart, who serves with the No to Named Persons campaign, said the “blanket nature of this law degrades the image of the family and derides the work of the vast majority of parents.”

“It also encourages suspicion among professionals about the dangers parents represent to their children,” he said.

Parents would be allowed to decline the guardian’s advice, but the guardian would “be able to share information with a wide range of public authorities and may intervene without parental consent.”

Along with the Christian Institute, the case was brought by the Christian charity CARE, Tymes Trust and the Family Education Trust.

The institute said parents James and Rhianwen McIntosh and Deborah Thomas are also part of the legal case, because they were told their child’s private medical reports would be given to a state agent.

A social worker, Maggie Mellon, also has spoken out against the plan.

See her statement:

The law, she said, would “bring about the end of family life as we know it.”

WND has reported the concept of a government watchdog for each child comes from the philosophy of the United Nations.

“This law shows the natural progression for a country that has ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and attempts to live up to its treaty provisions,” said Michael Donnelly, director of international relations for Home School Legal Defense Association.


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 30 Juin - 02:52 (2015)    Sujet du message: MSNBC HOST : YOUR KIDS BELONG TO THE COLLECTIVE Répondre en citant


Kurt Nimmo

April 6, 2013

In the video below, college professor and MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry says your children are not yours – they are owned by the community. She says public education has failed because we have not allowed the state to confiscate more of our money.

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjczwQOnMqg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0

“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” says the professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South. Kids belong to whole communities, she insists, and once we realize this we’ll make “better investments” in government indoctrination of children.

Melissa Harris-Perry is regurgitating the Obama “you didn’t build that” meme. “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia. “Somebody else made that happen,” it was not the result of individual initiative. “The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

“Like most people of his ideological bent, Obama either cannot or will not distinguish between society — which is created through peaceful commerce and other forms of private cooperation — and the state — an anti-social artifact built on conquest, coercion, and confiscation of wealth,” writes William Grigg. “Government produces nothing; it is an exercise in pure consumption and, usually, the destruction of capital. As Nietzsche famously said, everything the State has is stolen.”

Stephan Kinsella argues that the primary social evil today is a lack of respect for the fundamental right of self-ownership. Obama and Harris-Perry represent the other side of this argument. They believe, as do all Marxists and socialists, that the state, what Harris-Perry calls the “community,” owns the individual.

Harris-Perry urges us to “break through” the “private idea” that individuals own themselves. Like Marx, she believes the individual is a “communal being” and all human worth is intractably linked to the community, the collective, and the state is the ultimate manifestation of the collective will.

Harris-Perry’s homage to the state was part of a two-year long, multi-million dollar advertising campaign by MSNBC. The network, created through a merger between Microsoft and the death merchant General Electric, has long provided ideological fodder for president Obama, the proud Marxist (as Yuri Maltsev, former advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev, characterized him). “We can go backward, or we can keep moving forward,” he said during a speech at Carnegie Mellon University. “And I don’t know about you, but I want to move forward.”

It’s no mistake Obama’s handlers and MSNBC adopted the slogan. The word “forward” has a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It was frequently used as a name for socialist and communist newspapers and periodicals in the 20th century. “The slogan ‘Forward!’ reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism,” writes Victor Morton.

It seems incomprehensible that a multinational corporation like MSNBC would embrace communism. In fact, as Gary Allen noted, it is quite natural.

“If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all,” he wrote. “Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.”


Dernière édition par maria le Ven 25 Déc - 09:03 (2015); édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Ven 31 Juil - 03:57 (2015)    Sujet du message: UN: GOV’T MUST CONTROL PRIVATE SCHOOLS BECAUSE OF "HUMAN RIGHTS" Répondre en citant


Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Written by  Alex Newman

The United Nations wants its member states, mostly dictatorships and repressive regimes, to clamp down hard on educational freedom under the guise of “human rights.” Concerned that students in private schools around the world are not receiving sufficient doses of globalist indoctrination prescribed by various global agreements, the dictator-dominated UN “Human Rights Council” passed a resolution this month calling on governments worldwide to “monitor” and “regulate” non-government education. Governments and dictators should also impose “standards” on private schools, the UN bureaucrats and government representatives said in the deeply controversial document.  

Incredibly, the resolution even speaks of “protecting education from commercialization.” What it really means, of course, is protecting government-run monopoly “education” from competition by superior providers. After all, why would parents spend money on a private school if the tax-funded “education” provided by government was just as good or better? Obviously they would not. So what the UN pseudo-human rights bureaucracy is really saying is governments must prevent parents from choosing better alternatives. Of course, following the prescriptions outlined by Karl Marx, some members of the UN body actually ban any forms of non-government-run education already.

The disgraced UN council, composed of some of the most ruthless Communist and Islamist autocrats on Earth, regularly condemns freer nationsoften for upholding actual rights instead of bogus UN-defined privileges mischaracterized as “human rights.” Continuing with its long tradition, the body urged governments to “fulfil the right to education” by, among other schemes, “putting in place a regulatory framework guided by international human rights obligations for education providers that establishes, inter alia,  minimum norms and standards for the creation and operation of educational institutions.”

It was not immediately clear what sort of “standards” and “norms” the UN outfit had in mind — Common Core-style dumbing down and other UNESCO-linked demands, perhaps? Nor was it clear how usurping control over private and alternative schools to conform with purported “international human rights obligations” would contribute to a better education. In fact, proper education does not seem to be the goal at  all, as made clear by a growing deluge of UN documents, resolutions, and other schemes demanding that schools worldwide indoctrinate children into new “values,” “attitudes,” “beliefs,” “sustainability,” and “global citizenship.” 

The latest UN resolution on education, approved in Geneva on July 1, also calls for governments and dictators to start “monitoring private education providers” and “holding accountable those whose practices have a negative impact on the enjoyment of the right to education.” Setting aside the fact that education is a service and a privilege, not a right — real rights, by definition, mean freedom from coercion, not compulsory “services” from government — the resolution did not make clear what sorts of “practices” the UN and its members believe have a “negative impact” on “the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  education.”

Also in the resolution was a call for governments to use tax funds to support “research” (read: biased “studies” touting government education) and “awareness-raising activities” (read: propaganda touting government education) on the issue. Supposedly, the “research” and “awareness” should help “better understand the wide-ranging impact of the commercialization of education on the enjoyment of the right to education.” Of course, a mountain of research on the topic is already available, and it shows that government-run schools exist to serve government — and that private schools, homeschooling, and other alternatives are drastically superior to “public” education, generally at a fraction of the cost.

The UN also “calls upon all relevant stakeholders [governments, the UN, government-funded ‘civil society’ groups, regional outfits such as the European Union, etc] to ensure that the post-2015 development agenda fosters the universal realization of the right to education, including by establishing education targets that are specific, measurable, realistic and relevant,” the resolution said. The document did not specify what sort of “education targets” it had in mind. But based on previous UN education schemes, indoctrination targets would have been a better term to describe the agenda.  

Indeed, in the same resolution, the UN “Human Rights” Council applauded another UN organ, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which has been at the forefront of pushing the extreme ideologies of globalism and statism through schools worldwide. “The UNESCO-led UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, which began in 2005, was explicitly intended to instill in every human being ‘the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values necessary to shape a sustainable future,’” UNESCO chief Irina Bokova, a Bulgarian communist, boasted in a recent column. Read that again.

What is needed now is a global movement, with every student in every country learning about sustainable development from well-trained teachers, equipped with the appropriate curricula and resources,” Bokova continued, with “sustainable developmentmeaning a radical redesign of human society toward collectivism, central planning, humanism, population control, and global governance. In the same piece, Bokova bragged that her agency, which she regularly boasts promotes global humanism, was also “promoting climate-change education in schools.”  

As long as there are private schools outside the control of UN member governments and dictators, there will always be children whose “attitudes and values” are not shaped by the accelerating indoctrination efforts. Hence, under the guise of “human rights,” many of the UN’s most totalitarian and brutal member regimes demanded in the resolution that private schools be brought under government control. If private education negatively affects the “human right to education,” though, do privately owned grocery stores negatively affect the “human right to food”? Murderous communist dictator Raul Castro, whose regime sits on the UN “Human Rights” Council behind the resolution, may think so. But for anyone who appreciates liberty and prosperity, the answer is obvious. 

If the collection of mass-murderers and tyrants on the UN council was not itself enough evidence of the UN’s warped view of “human rights,” a brief examination of its scheming provides plenty more. Indeed, the UN’s “human rights” are diametrically opposed to the unalienable, God-given rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, or even traditional Western notions of human rights. Under the UN’s version of human rights, “rights” come not from God, but from governments, treaties, and international organizations. They can also be restricted or abolished by government at will under virtually any pretext, as the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” openly admits. And in no case may those alleged “rights” be used contrary to the “purposes and principles” of the UN, according to Article 29. In other words, you have no rights under UN “human rights.”

But it’s even worse than that. Just this month, after celebrating as a hero a homosexual activist most  infamous for raping underage boys, UN boss Ban Ki Moon claimed the U.S. Supreme Court’s attack on marriage, tradition, virtually every religion, states’ rights, self-government, and the U.S.

Constitution was a “great step forward for human rights.” Other recent attacks on freedom under the guise of promoting “human rights” have included trying to criminalize free speech, attacking Britain for not providing large enough houses for welfare recipients, demanding more gun control in America, calling for parents to be jailed for smacking their children, and much more. Meanwhile, the UN continues to be embroiled in scandals, including widespread and systematic rape of young children by its “peacekeeping” forces.

Ironically, though, the UN resolution demanding government control over all forms of education would appear to violate the UN’s own “Universal Declaration of [pseudo-] Human Rights.” For example, that document clearly states in Article 26 that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” If parents have the right to choose what kind of education their children will receive, how can the UN “human rights” apparatus demand that governments decide what kind of education private schools of parents’ choosing will provide to children? The same article in the UN declaration also states that education “shall further the activities of the United Nations.”   

While the UN resolution passed almost entirely unnoticed in the world press, it did have some supporters other than the mostly autocratic regimes on the UN “Human Rights” Council. A massive coalition of Astroturf “education” groups — some of which openly say they want government school to be made compulsory for all — celebrated the measure, too. “The rapid, unregulated growth of private providers of education is already creating — and enabling — violations of the right to education, threatening to erase the last 50 years of progress in access to education,” argued Camilla Croso with the Global Campaign for Education in a statement. “This resolution shows that States have realized that they must act now to regulate such providers — before it is too late.”

In the real world, however, the expansion of educational liberty and the diminishing role of government schools in some areas of the world ought to be celebrated. The UN and its member governments around the world have big plans to indoctrinate your children into becoming “green” and “global” citizens — and they openly boast about it. It is time for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN dictators club, defund it, and get the federal government out of aaalll education once and for all.
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Related articles:

UN Plots Future of Education: Creating Green “Global Citizens”
UN Pushes Agenda 21 Priorities in Elementary Classroom Curriculum
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
UN Boss: U.S. Gay Marriage Ruling a “Great Step for Human Rights”
UN “Human Rights” Report Attacks U.S. Gun Rights, Constitution
Ruthless Tyrants Win Seats on UN “Human Rights” Council
Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs
Schooling for World Government: UNESCO’s Global Citizenship Education Forum
The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
UN Pushes Common Core-style Global Education Regime
UNESCO Report: Sex Guidelines for Kids From Birth
UN Demands Obama “Nullify” Stand Your Ground Laws
UN Ridiculed for Attacking Poverty and Demanding Tax Hikes in Canada
UN Human Rights Attack on U.K. Ridiculed as “Marxist Diatribe”
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 10 Nov - 03:29 (2015)    Sujet du message: UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN'S SERVICES Répondre en citant


We don't really know what is happening to all these kids in this Refugee camps except by what we are been told by them. This ORR is run by a global  Catholic organization.

Control by Caritas


FFY 2012/13 State of Texas ORR Funded Programs

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/ffy-2012-13-state-of-texas-orr-funded-programs http://app.na.readspeaker.com/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=7596&lang=en_us&…


On March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 462, transferred responsibilities for the care and placement of unaccompanied children from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

Since then, ORR has cared for more than 175,000 children, incorporating child welfare values as well as the principles and provisions established by the Flores Agreement in 1997, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and its reauthorization acts, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and 2008.

Unaccompanied children apprehended by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immigration officials are transferred to the care and custody of ORR. ORR promptly places an unaccompanied child in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child, taking into consideration danger to self, danger to the community, and risk of flight. ORR takes into consideration the unique nature of each child’s situation and incorporates child welfare principles when making placement, clinical, case management, and release decisions that are in the best interest of the child.

ORR Policy Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied

Key Documents for the Unaccompanied Children's Services Program

  Read More About UCS


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 2 Fév - 07:30 (2016)    Sujet du message: MAKE VIRAL: GROUP THAT WANTS LGBT IN SCHOOLS FREAKS OUT WHEN SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER TELLS THE TRUTH. Répondre en citant


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0P3m60CbYo

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa_ELGR1EyM


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjJiVL9sp8k

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mer 16 Mar - 08:47 (2016)    Sujet du message: AVEC LAURENCE ROSSIGNOL, ON ENTRE DANS L'IDEOLOGIE DE « TON CORPS M'APPARTIENT » Répondre en citant



Après le droit individuel et l’égalité pour tous, voici venu le temps du bonheur pour tous que nous promet le transhumanisme.

Arthur de Watrigant
Concepteur-rédacteur en publicité

Membre de l’Avant Garde

Alors qu’elle n’était pas encore ministre « des Familles », Laurence Rossignol avait affirmé sur un plateau de télévision que les enfants n’appartenaient pas à leurs parents, une évidence, mais à l’État. Pour beaucoup, ce n’était guère une surprise. On reniflait déjà l’idéologie qui traînait sa guenille un peu partout en France, mais peut-être pensions-nous, là, qu’il ne s’agissait que du moyen d’arracher la personne à ses racines pour mieux la déconstruire, alors que leur ambition dépassait largement la simple acquisition de notre esprit.

Après la défense d’un droit biaisé – celui de son corps -, prenant bien soin de confisquer tout débat, voici venu le temps de la promotion d’un autre droit : celui du corps d’autrui. Les sujets changent, pas la stratégie : ils s’érigent en défenseurs d’une liberté absolue pour mieux nous la confisquer, prenant soin de déconstruire au passage les fondements de notre société. Ils ont commencé par l’esprit, ils attaquent notre chair. Ce n’est plus « mon corps m’appartient » mais « ton corps m’appartient ».

La possibilité de choisir a cédé sa place à l’obligation de ne plus choisir. Ce sont les quotas d’avortement obligatoires glissés dans la dernière loi de Santé que l’on impose aux agences régionales de santé. Ce sont les hystériques du Planning familial qui somment un maire de retirer le cliché d’une maman et son bébé, lors d’une exposition de photographie, parce qu’il porte atteinte au droit absolu de l’IVG. C’est la courageuse présidente de l’ADMD qui lynche une maman sur Twitter parce qu’elle a égoïstement accepté le chromosome supplémentaire de son enfant aujourd’hui malheureux. Ce sont les promoteurs de la GPA, dont certains de nos ministres qui font leurs tours de France pour vendre le ventre de leurs esclaves, promettant aux uns d’arrondir leurs fins de mois (tout en affichant leur combat contre le libéralisme économique), aux autres d’assouvir leurs besoins d’enfants. Ce sont ces pétitions des vieilles cannes télévisuelles qui réclament le droit à mourir pour les autres, alors qu’elles-mêmes s’arc-boutent à leur vie médiatique, parfois même jusqu’à l’acharnement thérapeutique.

Après le droit individuel et l’égalité pour tous, voici venu le temps du bonheur pour tous que nous promet le transhumanisme. « Il sied au progrès de respecter ce qu’il remplace », écrivait Désiré Nisard. Encore faut-il saisir la complexité de l’homme. En appliquant l’idéologie de la déconstruction jusqu’à s’octroyer le droit de vivre ou de mourir, l’ère du progrès pour aider apparaît chaque jour davantage comme un darwinisme d’État, dans une société où le faible est vite considéré, pour son bien, comme sacrifiable.


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Ven 8 Avr - 04:08 (2016)    Sujet du message: ET SI MME ROSSIGNOL ALLAIT SIFFLER LA-HAUT SUR LA COLLINE? Répondre en citant


L'homme et la femme sont considérés par le Créateur comme une oeuvre parfaite avec une intelligence supérieure aux animaux. Les animaux ont-ils besoin de suivre des cours sur l'éducation de leurs progénitures? Ont-ils besoin de suivre des cours sur comment donner naissance à un enfant, à l'allaiter, à le nourrir, à le corriger, etc? Pas du tout, ils savent par instinct ce qu'ils doivent faire, mais sous ce système communiste, on nous a habitué à dépendre des conseils de nos gouvernants pour éduquer nos enfants. Nous avons tous tombé dans ce piège, n'est-ce-pas?

Et si nous revenions au bon sens et aux valeurs que Dieu nous a donné? C'est ce qu'il faut faire si nous voulons préserver nos familles, mais sachez que cet état communiste global sera là pour nous faire la vie dure, car ses nombreux "sages" tentent de nous faire croire qu'eux savent ce qui est bon pour chacun de nous alors qu'en réalité, ils nous exploite et nous manipule de toutes les manières possibles afin de garder un pouvoir "sacré" sur chacun de ses esclaves. Et lorsque l'on voit comment nos enfants et petits-enfants sont traités dans les centre d'accueil et les institutions scolaires, on voit la main mise de ce système contrôlant, et qui interdit de plus en plus à ses travailleurs de faire la moindre éducation et allusion en lien avec la Parole de Dieu, qui elle nous enseigne à devenir de bons parents en donnant une éducation qui fera des futures générations des hommes et des femmes accomplis.

Dans notre société orwellienne, l’Etat s’arroge le pouvoir exorbitant d’élever nos enfants à notre place.

François Teutsch

Comme toujours préoccupé par les soucis quotidiens des Français, le gouvernement vient une fois encore de lancer une action utile, urgente et peu coûteuse à destination des parents. Présenté par Laurence Rossignol, ministre « des » Familles (sic), de l’Enfance et des Droits des femmes, le « Livret des parents » sera envoyé à tous les futurs parents entre le quatrième et le cinquième mois de grossesse à partir de la semaine prochaine. Selon Le Figaro Madame qui annonce la nouvelle entre deux douzaines de publicités pour des produits de maquillage, cet ouvrage « réalisé avec la CNAF et la Caisse de mutualité sociale agricole » a pour objet de « donner des repères éducatifs et pratiques aux parents avant la naissance d’un premier enfant ».

De mon temps, on avait le livre de Laurence Pernoud J’attends un enfant. Désormais – modernité oblige -, on a celui de Laurence Rossignol. Le titre a changé puisque la grossesse n’est plus obligatoire et que l’achat d’un enfant n’est plus considéré comme totalement intolérable. Il faut vivre avec son temps. Le livret en question remplace aussi le livret de paternité, institué par Ségolène Royal en 2001, la notion étant, par la grâce de la loi Taubira, fortement démonétisée.
Mais l’essentiel de ce texte fondamental pour les parents est ailleurs : on y apprend que la fessée n’a aucune vertu éducative. Elle pourrait même provoquer de graves troubles chez l’enfant. Et, à titre d’exemple, les auteurs expliquent doctement que le bébé « ne crie pas pour vous énerver » et que « se fâcher après un bébé qui pleure ne sert à rien ». Merci pour le rappel, et pour cette manière délicate de nous faire la leçon.

À vrai dire, je ne connais pas beaucoup de parents qui donnent des fessées à leurs bébés. Ou alors je les croise aux audiences correctionnelles. Mais les parents normaux, eux, savent que le bébé ne crie pas pour les énerver. Ils savent aussi qu’un enfant de deux ans qui se roule par terre dans un supermarché ne sera jamais traumatisé par une fessée courte, sèche et méritée qui lui rappellera, après tout, que ce n’est pas un comportement normal. De même qu’un enfant de six ans comprend très bien que jeter le chat par la fenêtre – il paraît que ces bêtes retombent toujours sur leurs pattes – mérite aussi quelques rougeurs cuisantes et postérieures, et qu’il n’en mourra pas. La leçon porte généralement ses fruits.

Mais dans notre société orwellienne, l’État s’arroge le pouvoir exorbitant d’élever nos enfants à notre place et de nous apprendre ce que nous devons faire. C’est finalement une conception assez fasciste : l’enfant appartient à l’État, pas à ses parents. Il paraît que ce livret vise à donner des « repères-clefs » aux parents : mais de toute éternité, les parents ont élevé leurs enfants sans le moindre besoin de conseils de l’État. C’est leur première responsabilité, leur rôle essentiel, difficile et combien important. Il est de la responsabilité de la société de protéger les enfants soumis à de vrais actes de maltraitance. Pas d’éduquer les parents à l’éducation.

Surtout quand, en même temps, le même gouvernement prive délibérément certains enfants de père ou de mère. Et si madame Rossignol partait siffler là-haut sur la colline et nous foutait la paix une fois pour toutes ?


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Ven 27 Mai - 06:05 (2016)    Sujet du message: UK: SECRET COURTS APPROVE ADOPTIONS OF CHILDREN FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM HOMES; PARENTS CAN DO NOTHING Répondre en citant


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2c6xak3hS8

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Sam 28 Mai - 14:22 (2016)    Sujet du message: STAFOORDSHIRE COUNCIL STEALS A ONE DAY OLD BABY (CAUGHT ON CAMERA) Répondre en citant


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9tyDTfu4JY

I decided to join these two editions of the UK Column together, as it not only shows you the criminal behaviour of the UK Social Services and the police for supporting child stealing, but the second half is an interview of the Father, Paul Robert's, who explains clearly what has been happening to his family over the course of several years.
This video is disturbing and viewer discretion is advised.

We really do need to expose these criminals who are rotten from the top down.
Please share far and wide, and please subscribe to the UK Column if you can.

I would also like to ask people to keep their comments respectful towards the family, and not make any ego driven judgements, mainly by macho men who claim they wouldn't let this happen to them, it resolves nothing. Not all of us are big and burly, and not all of us know how to fight. Focus your efforts on the real criminals here. Besides, any act of aggression towards these people would only result in the parents losing any chance of getting their children back (although the chances are slim at best regardless) and violence never solved anything. Paul Robert's showed great courage in remaining calm.
Any comments not adhering to the above will be removed.

Thank you for your support.






Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 5 Juil - 07:03 (2016)    Sujet du message: FRANCE : INTERDICTION DE LA FESSEE : LE TOTALITARISME COMPASSIONNEL A ENCORE FRAPPE! Répondre en citant



C’est au nom de la compassion que l’on nous aliène et que l’on détruit intérieurement la société et l’être humain.

François Falcon
Satiriste polémiste 

Dans la nuit du 1er au 2 juillet, une poignée de députés a voté un amendement à la loi « égalité et citoyenneté », un gros fourre-tout qui permet aux plus sectaires gauchistes de transcrire dans le Code civil ou pénal leurs élucubrations idéologiques de post-soixante-huitards gâteux. Reprenant la proposition du député F.-M. Lambert, dont les initiales sont déjà tout un programme, ces parlementaires des groupes socialiste, écologiste et républicain ont entériné en catimini l’interdiction de « tout recours aux violences corporelles » dans l’éducation des enfants.

Certes, au grand dam des lobbies libéraux-libertaires qui sévissent à l’ONU et au Conseil de l’Europe, la fessée n’est pas explicitement mentionnée, mais la formule est suffisamment vague pour que la loi puisse punir aussi bien d’authentiques bourreaux d’enfants que de braves pères de famille soucieux de donner une solide colonne vertébrale à leurs enfants. Ce confusionnisme n’est pas sans rappeler la législation routière qui conduit la justice à traiter d’honnêtes citoyens plus durement que d’authentiques criminels. Mais cet amendement porte surtout la marque de ce totalitarisme compassionnel qui dissout les sociétés humaines les unes après les autres.

Totalitarisme peut sembler un grand mot. Ce terme, pourtant, ne désigne pas un régime dictatorial mais un système politique qui prétend régenter la totalité de la vie économique et sociale d’une nation, jusqu’à la vie privée et la pensée des citoyens. Loi après loi, ce totalitarisme soft progresse depuis plus de 40 ans et semble accélérer ses offensives. Que l’on songe aux récentes attaques du gouvernement contre la liberté de l’enseignement et au saccage méthodique de l’enseignement public : l’idéologie se substitue de plus en plus visiblement à l’instruction et la propagande progresse sur les ruines du savoir. Avec l’interdiction de la fessée, le piège se referme : vous n’êtes plus libre d’aider vos enfants à se construire et l’État se charge de les déconstruire.

Ce totalitarisme-là prétend s’opposer aux totalitarismes des années 30. Ce n’est donc pas un totalitarisme brutal. Ce n’est pas Big Father, pas même Big Brother : c’est Big Mother ; c’est au nom de la compassion que l’on nous aliène et que l’on détruit intérieurement la société et l’être humain. La fessée, c’est désagréable, alors il faut l’interdire, quand bien même cette interdiction conduirait à fabriquer des générations de déséquilibrés, de délinquants et de suicidaires. La prison, c’est un univers terrible, alors il faut laisser sortir les pires criminels, et tant pis pour leurs futures victimes. L’égoïsme, ce n’est pas bien, alors il faut accueillir des millions d’immigrés clandestins sans chercher à distinguer les authentiques réfugiés politiques des partisans de l’État islamique. Ce totalitarisme-là ne met pas en place un ordre impitoyable, il provoque un désordre monstrueux.

Ce totalitarisme n’a pas d’armée régulière. Il possède quelques milices comme les autoproclamés antifascistes, mais il progresse surtout par le contrôle des finances, des médias et des institutions, parfois à l’échelle planétaire. Il est, d’ailleurs, frappant de constater que l’interdiction de la fessée se diffuse comme le mariage gay. Tout commence par un discours compassionnel sur les souffrances morales des homosexuels rejetés ou des enfants battus. Puis cela se poursuit par des campagnes de presse de plus en plus rapprochées. Ensuite vient la pression des associations et des organisations internationales – l’Inter-LGBT ou le Comité des droits de l’enfant de l’ONU – puis l’adoption de la loi transgressive par un pays pionnier – Suède ou Pays-Bas, par exemple. Enfin, l’exemple se diffuse méthodiquement et l’on peut commencer à présenter comme ringards les États qui n’ont « pas encore » adopté le mariage gay ou l’interdiction de la fessée.

Le problème, c’est que cela commence à se voir, et que le citoyen, tout brave ou tout abruti qu’il est, n’aime pas bien que l’on s’attaque à sa famille.


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Jeu 7 Juil - 07:00 (2016)    Sujet du message: ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATING IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM Répondre en citant




June 29, 2004 Release
This release supercedes all previous dated and undated releases.  
James Roger Brown


Five-year-old Florida foster child Rilya Wilson was kidnapped from State custody in February 2001. Florida officials did not detect the kidnapping for fifteen months. The kidnapping went undetected for two reasons, Rilya Wilson was kidnapped by persons knowledgeable of the inner workings of the child protection system, and Florida Department of Children and Families case file record forms were falsified for fifteen months. Case workers falsely reported Rilya Wilson was in Florida State custody and in good health.

The Rilya Wilson case is not an isolated incident. Falsification of child protection system records is part of a national pattern of organized crime. For one example, Employees of the Florida Department of Children and Families were also implicated in the kidnapping of an Arkansas child that involved falsification of records. In a June 6, 2002, opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that an infant Arkansas citizen had been illegally transferred to Florida State custody in what was essentially an interstate criminal conspiracy to seize and transport children in complete disregard of State and Federal law. (See Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Cox, Supreme Court of Arkansas No. 01-1021, 349ark, issue 3, sc 9, 6 June 2002 http://courts.state.ar.us/opinions/2002a/20020606/01-1021.wpd)

The Rilya Wilson case is merely the tip of a criminal iceberg. Beginning about 1973, criminal elements in the mental health and social work professions began cooperating to construct a nationwide organized criminal bureaucracy to exploit children and implement a shared political agenda behind the legislated secrecy of the child protection, juvenile justice, and mental health systems. (For details see EVIDENCE BOOK SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS link on page 9.) The current result is a nationwide organized criminal operation integrated across the child protection, mental health and social work systems that uses everything from sophisticated science fraud-based "evaluation" instruments structured to produce false positives (see EVIDENCE BOOK) to third-party State service contracts written to sustain a system of structural corruption in which State employees and contract service providers must falsify records and testimony or they will not continue to be employed or paid.

To maintain their existence, organized criminal operations such as these are no different from other bureaucracies that must construct policies, methods, and procedures necessary to sustain daily operations. The only special adaptation required to run criminal operations in government and quasi-government agencies is that organized crime bureaucracy policies, methods, and procedures must be integrated into the policies, methods and procedures of the umbrella agency or program and not be detected as criminal processes.

The existence of organized crime in the child protection system in any given State is not that difficult to detect. Prominent among the indicators (see EVIDENCE BOOK) are:

1.   Systematic, consistent falsification of child protection agency records and testimony, contract mental health evaluations and testimony, and social work intervention records and testimony;
2.   The annual number of "founded" child abuse allegations can be predicted from the number of conditional federal grant and reimbursement salary fund dollars needed to balance the State child protection agency payroll (the number of children taken into State custody each year will be the number sufficient to generate the federal fund claims necessary to balance the agency payroll); and
3. Third-party contracts to file State child protection agency federal fund claims will contain provisions that only compensate the contractor for increases in federal funds paid to the State over and above the amount paid in the previous contract for such claim filing services.

Inserting a contract provision that links a federal fund claims contractor's compensation to increasing annual federal fund dollars generated over the previous contract period is a classic example of structural corruption. If the contractor fails to increase paid federal fund claims for a specified time period (usually quarterly), their contract can be cancelled. The end result is a system in which everyone stays employed only if the annual number of founded child abuse cases always increases and never decreases, or annual paid federal fund claims increases and never decreases. An important byproduct of this criminal process for exploiting children, independent of the true child abuse rate, is the blind political support for the criminal operations generated by the constant flow of conditional federal funds into the respective State's economy. In the Rilya Wilson case, even the Foster Mother continued to receive and accept payments for the care of Rilya over a year after the child disappeared. Caseworkers reportedly told her to take the money.

An ironic twist is that this corrupt modern child slave trade system is another example of history repeating itself. A criminal bureaucracy previously developed and operated in the Swiss social welfare system from about 1850 to 1950 under the same pretext of protecting children from alleged inadequacies of their parents. The Swiss Verdingkinder system is described in Peter Neumann's documentary film "Verdingkinder and Marco Leuenberger's Thesis, "Verdingkinder. Geschichte der armenrechtlichen

KinderfOrsorge im Kanton Bern 1847-1945, 211 S., 1991." (An internet search using the term "Verdingkinder" will produce links to some English language articles.)

The Swiss "Verdingkinde?' and United States child slave trade systems have the following social processes in common:

1.   Poor families are required to register with the Government. (US Public Assistance, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and numerous other special programs.)
2. Once registered with the Government, Parents are subjected to ongoing monitoring to determine if "the best interest of the child" is served by removing the child from the home and placing the child in State "protective" custody.
3. Children who age out of the system are not intellectually and emotionally prepared for adult life, especially marital relationships.
4. Decisions about the "best interest of the child" are made by Government employees using vague subjective criteria and State or personal economic interest.
5. Children are auctioned off or distributed under government sanction. (US Child Protection Agencies post pictures of children held for adoption on the internet, and foster parents are enticed with additional household income generated by foster child "support" payments.)
6. Children are physically abused, starved, and malnourished by State and foster custodians.
7. Children are sexually abused by State and foster custodians.
8. Children are murdered by State and foster custodians.
9. Children are economically exploited. (In the Swiss system by the middlemen, farmers and businesses using the child slave labor; In the US system by State employees who wrongfully seize children for federal funds to meet the agency payroll; by psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers filing fraudulent insurance claims; by crime victim therapy service providers filing claims for nonexistent or fictitious child abuse crime victims; and by attorneys, prosecutors, child abuse investigators, juvenile court judges, and civil court judges who exploit false child abuse allegations to sustain their income, power or prestige.)
10. Criminal activity is concealed through falsified records, incomplete records and failure to keep records.
11. Government agencies pay fees and subsidies to State and foster custodians who physically abuse, murder, sexually abuse and economically exploit children.
12. Law enforcement agencies ignore or cover up criminal acts against children by State and foster custodians.
13. When prosecutions do occur for crimes against Verdingkinder or foster children, the punishment is minor compared to the crime.
14. The operation intended to benefit poor families and children becomes an organized criminal enterprise that economically, physically, and sexually exploits children.
15. Government officials and media not directly involved in the criminal activity refuse to believe that a child slave trade could develop in a civilized nation like Switzerland or the United States.
16. The economic exploitation of children in the Swiss Verdingkinder system coincidently did not end until machinery was developed that provided a cheaper means of farm and factory production than child slave labor. The United States child exploitation system will not end without intervention unless States find easier methods of obtaining federal fund revenues equal to the amount currently generated by taking children into State "protective" custody.
17. Both the Swiss and United States child slave trade systems expanded and operated outside of Government control. (The private purchasing and sale of children in the US are conducted by private child brokers and child adoption attorneys.)

Relevant insights can also be extracted from parallels in the embarrassment of the Bush Administration over numerous ignored warnings that Osama bin Laden planned to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, and the embarrassment of Florida Officials having to explain fifteen months of falsified child protection records, sworn court testimony that Rilya Wilson was in Florida State custody and doing fine, and falsified federal fund claims for services delivered to a child who may have been dead the entire time. After the collapse of the World Trade Center, both the American Public and terrorists worldwide now know the United States is vulnerable to attack, due in large part to corruption, incompetence and mismanagement in intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

As a consequence of the Rilya Wilson case in Florida, the Public and every child molester, pornographer and other criminals who need children for their misdeeds know that the corruption, incompetence and mismanagement in the child protection system can be exploited as cover to acquire children for their own illicit purposes. What happened to Rilya Wilson in Florida can, does, and will happen in any State where the current organized criminal exploitation of children is allowed to continue. Sooner or later other criminals are going to become sufficiently aware of the mechanisms the current child protection system organized criminals use to manage their criminal bureaucracy, that child molesters, pornographers, pimps, and drug smugglers will also be able to exploit the system, as were the people who reportedly kidnapped Rilya Wilson and returned a week later to collect her clothes. This was the behavior of persons who believed they had no reason to fear being held accountable for kidnapping or any other criminal offense.

Among the obvious criminal opportunities is obtaining information about the illicit activity (falsifying federal claims, official reports, insurance claims, etc.) of individual State employees or licensed professionals, such as psychiatrists and psychologists, and blackmailing or otherwise compelling them to allow access to children for criminal exploitation or perversion.

Of major importance to prosecutors is that the systematic falsification of records by child protection system crime participants in psychiatry, psychology, social work and child abuse investigation units, results in the systematic falsification of evidence used in child-related criminal and civil judicial proceedings. (See EVIDENCE BOOK.) It may be tempting for police and prosecutors not to look too closely at experts and evidence which make convictions easier, but relying on criminals who protect themselves by providing tainted essential services and corrupted evidence to the people who should be arresting and prosecuting them is a house of cards that will collapse locally or nationally at some point. We have contemporary examples of chaos created by the falsification of evidence in the Los Angeles Police Department, and the newly-documented error rate in death row convictions. Several decades of both Los Angeles and death row cases have to be reviewed and readjudicated.

When the disastrous consequences of entering the fourth decade of organized criminal administration of the child protection system are finally disclosed, State Governments and the Federal Government face having to remedy the chaos and carnage caused by malicious prosecutions, false child abuse allegations and convictions, falsified adoptions, bankrupted families, damaged children and adult lives, and the children stolen by State employees and diverted into prostitution and other criminal activities.

In addition to the Swiss Verdingkinder scandal, at least one other historical precedent exists with several parallels to the manner in which the United States child protection system currently engages in the now-documented systematic abuse and atrocities with the tacit approval of State Officials and Federal Agencies and Officials.

From 1976 to 1983, the government of Argentina under the control of a military junta conducted a "Dirty War" against anyone perceived as "leftist." Just as with child protection agencies, the Argentine Military Junta went after anyone who criticized either the way it operated or its policies. Most of the same types of people targeted by the Military Junta are likewise targeted by child protection agency organized crime managers: the poor, critics of the system, social activists, people who resist personal intimidation and the abuse of fellow citizens, and people who ask too many questions.

In Argentina, thousands of individuals and entire families were rounded up and executed by being beaten to death, shot in the back of the head, or sedated and thrown alive from an airplane over the open ocean. Concurrently, the Argentine Military maintained a list of soldiers wanting children. Pregnant women taken into custody were kept alive until their babies were born, then executed. Infant children of the pregnant women and murdered families were distributed among the soldiers who killed them. [Criminal investigations and prosecutions of Argentine soldiers involved in the atrocities are still going on.] (See http://www.yendor.com/vanished/junta/caraballo.html and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001960898_argentina21.html.)

On October 7, 1976, United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger met with Argentina's Foreign Minister Admiral Cesar Augusto Guzzetti. At the time of this meeting, Congress was preparing to approve sanctions against the Argentine Junta because of widespread reports of human rights abuses. Henry Kissinger communicated to Guzzetti United States Government approval of the Junta's use of mass arrests, torture, and mass executions to deal with suspected leftists.

According to a declassified transcript of the meeting, Kissinger stated:
"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better... The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help." National Intelligence Archives: http://www.qwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB104/ 

Those working to obtain justice for the victims of abuse and atrocities committed by perpetrators embedded in the United States child protection system should keep Kissinger's words in mind as another parallel. Even with the possibility of Congressional action on the horizon, reform efforts can be undermined by friendship or economic ties between Federal Officials and State-level cronies directly participating in the child protection system organized crime.

Some of the more brutal foster care abuse and death scandals were cases in which children taken into State custody were placed in the homes of case workers in violation of regulations prohibiting it. In some cases the abuse and deaths occurred in the homes of the very case workers who had seized the children. (See EVIDENCE BOOK.)

One disturbing parallel is that for Argentina's Military Junta and for the United States child protection system, proof of guilt is not a requirement to be placed under government control; allegation or suspicion of guilt alone is sufficient. In both systems, whether you die or survive the process, the life you had before is completely destroyed and you are tainted for the rest of your life by the mere fact of an allegation or suspicion.



Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Jeu 7 Juil - 07:50 (2016)    Sujet du message: 40 ANS D'ATTENTE POUR DES EXCUSES DE LA SUISSE ON A FROLE LE NAZISME Répondre en citant


Rien n'a vraiment changé, sinon certaines méthodes. L'enlèvement et la disparition de milliers d'enfants par les pouvoirs de l'état, des services sociaux et de différents groupes bien payés est complètement occulté par les médias et pour cause quand nous voyons qui contrôle tous ces médias. La Suisse pharaonique dont les Templiers ont fait leur base terrestre, est une entité complètement sous la bannière du nazisme. La majorité des grands pays ont toutes leur ambassade en Suisse, y compris le Vatican, et si vous prenez le temps de visiter virtuellement ou physiquement ce pays, vous y trouverez toute la symbologie occulte et maçonnique sur tous les grands bâtiments de l'état, sur plusieurs magasins et maisons de tous ces grands adorateurs de Satan. Ce pays, qui s'est toujours présenté comme un pays neutre où il fait bon vivre, est en fait la base principale des principautés reptiliennes, néphilimes de la nouvelle aristocratie moderne. C'est là également que nous retrouvons CERN et que tout dernièrement les grands de cette aristocratie mondiale s'est réunie pour une cérémonie très occulte afin d'appeler les forces de ténèbres à se manifester dans notre monde.

De toute ces histoires d'enlèvements, de disparitions et de meurtres souvent rituel de ces petits enfants, rien n'a vraiment changé, à ce jour. Seul la propagande va de l'avant pour la protection des enfants, avec des programmes comme celui du Vatican et de son Conseil Pontifical pour la protection des mineurs, qui lui permet de contrôler toutes les institutions, centre d'hébergement, foyer d'accueil, camp de réfugiés etc. En se présentant en défenseur et protecteur de l'enfance, des milliers d'enfants continuent d'être enlevés de leur foyer, de disparaître, ou d'être mis en adoption. Sous le nouveau régime nazi international qui prend place, sous les différentes lois antiterroristes, les parents non soumis à l'état, qui critique ouvertement le système qui prend place et à la nouvelle (et ancienne religion) babylonnienne mondiale se verront retirer leur(s) enfant(s) et deviendront les cibles faciles pour tout genre de commerce, d'esclavage et de rituel, pour tous ces groupes nazis qui travaillent avec un seul coeur à la destruction des lois humaines donnés par le Créateur.

Déjà, depuis quelques temps, nous entendons parler de disparition de milliers d'immigrants, qu'ils soient islamistes ou mexicains qui avaient cherché refuge en Europe et aux Etats-Unis. Non, rien n'a changé, sinon la propagande mensongère de ceux qui disent vouloir le bien des enfants et la Paix dans le monde.

A vous parents qui vivez cet enfer, la majorité d'entre vous n'avez rien fait de mal pour ainsi vous faire enlever vos enfants. Le problème est ce système corrompu qui nous dirige. Tout ce que je peux vous encourager à faire est vraiment de vous confier en l'Eternel et de priez pour vos enfants. Certains se battent contre le système afin de récupérer leur(s) enfant(s), et c'est tout à fait normal. On ne peut laisser la chair de sa chair être maltraité ainsi. Mais dans ce système corrompu où les lois de Dieu sont bafouées constamment aux détriments des soi-disant Droits des enfants, plusieurs parents ne reverront jamais plus leur(s) enfant(s). Sous cette mondialisation, les familles seront toutes fractionnées et tous seront séparés ou tués.

Ce n'est certes pas ce que Dieu a voulu pour l'humanité, mais l'humanité a préféré croire aux mensonges et pièges que Satan a mis en place, sous le couvert de l'humanitarisme et de l'amour. Le prix à payer pour tout cela est énorme, mais Dieu dans Sa grâce miséricordieuse nous appelle tous à se repentir et à retourner vers Lui et Ses ordonnances. Il faudra une grande force spirituelle pour supporter ce qui vient dans chacun de nos pays et dans nos familles et seule la vraie force et Paix du Seigneur nous aidera à supporter toutes ces horreurs qui viennent sur ce monde. Ne courrez pas après vos leaders religieux, ils sont tous complices de ce qui se met en place. Leur silence est également très significatif quant on voit ce qui déjà est devant nos yeux. Confiez vos vies entièrement à Jésus-Christ, qui un jour, viendra lutter pour Son peuple et qui rendra justice contre toutes ces entités maléfiques et humaines qui détruisent tout sur leur passage.

L'heure avance, et nous voyons très bien leur plan et ce qui vient sur ce monde, mais son regard est concentré vers une autre dimension spirituelle, qui elle ouvre la porte étroite, la seule porte qui peut sauver et qui assure à l'homme un avenir meilleur. Un jour, et très bientôt, toutes ses forces sataniques seront détruites par le grand Je Suis et ses guerriers qui sont demeurés fidèle à la cause de la vraie Justice et de la Paix. Ayons donc nos regards sur ce Jésus qui est de plus en plus ouvertement maltraité et dénigré, en ce XXIe siècle. Dites-vous bien, que si ce vrai Messie n'existait pas, toutes ces groupes satanistes ne prendraient pas autant de plaisir et de force afin d'en détruire les fondations, de le ridiculiser et de l'offenser de toutes les manières possibles. On ne mettrait pas non plus toutes ces lois en place contre les vrais disciples afin de les accuser faussement jusqu'à vouloir tous les exterminer. Pourquoi autant d'acharnement contre quelqu'un qui n'existerait pas?

Je vous mets ce lien pour que vous soyez mieux informé sur le sujet de tous ces enfants que le système se plait à maltraiter.  


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mar 13 Sep - 07:11 (2016)    Sujet du message: VATICAN'S COMMISSION ON PROTECTING MINORS RELEASES STATEMENT Répondre en citant


‘In the coming months the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will be going live with its own website. It is also our hope that it will be a useful resource for the Church and all people of good will in our common goal, which is to make our Church and our society a safe home for all.’

September 12, 2016 ZENIT Staff Vatican Dicasteries/Diplomacy


Below is the Vatican-provided statement released by the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors today in the Vatican:


The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors [PCPM] works throughout the year and came together in Rome from September 5 through 11 for a week of Working Group meetings, [Guidelines, Healing and Care, Education, Formation, Theology and Spirituality, [u] and for its Plenary Assembly[/u].

The Working Group meetings focused on the updates for current projects, and developing draft proposals for the Holy Father, Pope Francis. For example, the Commission has developed a template for guidelines in the safeguarding and protection of children, adolescents and vulnerable adults, which we will shortly present to the Holy Father for his consideration.

Education is key

Highlights of this Plenary Assembly were the members’ reports on the progress of on-going education programs, both at a local level and in the Vatican.

These initiatives are part of the Commission’s effort to be of service to the Holy Father by placing their expertise at the disposition of local churches and church leaders.

Commission members have also been invited to give talks and take part in various conferences and workshops on all five continents.

These include: talks and workshops held in Australia, in the Archdiocese of Melbourne; in South Africa (SACBC), an orientation program for New Missionaries; in the Philippines [CBCP], a workshop for the Archdiocese of Manila; in Colombia, a talk with clergy of the Archdiocese of Bogotá, a workshop with religious communities, workshops with the Major Seminary and a workshop with evangelization leaders; USA, a talk with “United States National Safe Environment and Victims Assistance Coordinators”; a workshop in Fiji; in New Zealand a series of talks and workshops with the bishops and religious leaders; in Ghana a meeting with the secretary generals of the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar from the Association of [SECAM]; a meeting in Tanzania with child protection practitioners from the Association of Member Episcopal Conferences in Eastern Africa [AMECEA] in Argentina, a discussion with seminarians and clergy of the Diocese of Moron, Buenos Aires; In Santo Domingo, a meeting with fifty formators from thirteen different nations belonging to the Council of Latin American Bishops Conferences [CELAM]; a meeting with Bishops and canonists of Slovakia and Czech Republic; in Italy, a seminar for Abbots of the Benedictine Confederation and participation in the Anglophone Safeguarding Conference.

In the context of the Vatican, Commission members were invited to address meetings of the Pontifical Ecclesiastic Academy and the Congregation for Consecrated Life.

In the coming week members have also been invited to address the training for new bishops held by the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, a meeting of the Congregation for the Clergy and the training for new Bishops held by the Congregation for bishops.

Other education programs planned in the coming months include workshops in Mexico, Ecuador and with the Colombian Bishops Conference. The Commission has also been asked to address the Conference of Major Superiors of Men in the US and to hold a workshop for the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences [FABC].

Day of Prayer

A survivor of clerical child sexual abuse made the proposal of a Day of Prayer to the Commission. The Commission believes that prayer is one part of the healing process for survivors and the community of believers. Public prayer is also an important way of consciousness raising in the Church.

The Holy Father has requested that National Bishops Conferences choose an appropriate day on which to pray for the survivors and victims of sexual abuse as part of a Universal Day of Prayer initiative.

The Commission was happy to learn that many Bishops Conferences have already taken steps to enact the proposal.

We were informed that in Australia, the Church throughout the country marked the Day of Prayer on Sunday September 11, in conjunction with their National Day for Child Protection.

The Bishops of the Philippines have already begun to discuss how best to implement the Day of Prayer and will soon announce a date.

The Southern African Bishops Conferences [SACBC] have embraced the proposal dedicating three days to the initiative from Friday December 2 to Sunday December 4., the second Sunday of Advent. Friday will be observed as a day of fasting, there will be a penitential vigil on Saturday and on Sunday a statement prepared by the SACBC, will be read out in all parishes.

The PCPM has prepared resources and materials for the Universal Day of Prayer and we are happy to make them available on request.

MOTU PROPRIO “As a Loving Mother”

The Holy Father’s motu proprio “As a Loving Mother” was discussed. Accountability in dealing with the scandal of child sexual abuse by clergy has been a major concern for the Commission from the outset. In February 2015, the Commission made a proposal to the Holy Father regarding bishop accountability. In “As a Loving Mother”, Pope Francis goes beyond the accountability of bishops broadening it to other Church leaders. The Commission has welcomed this.

Coming soon the PCPM Website

Our presence in the digital world is seen as key to furthering the Commission’s efforts to collaborate with local Churches and disseminate the importance of the protection and safeguarding of minors and vulnerable adults. In the coming months the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors will be going live with its own website. It is also our hope that it will be a useful resource for the Church and all people of good will in our common goal, which is to make our Church and our society a safe home for all.

The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors was created by Pope Francis in March of 2014. The Chirograph of His Holiness Pope Francis states specifically, “The Commission’s specific task is to propose to me the most opportune initiatives for protecting minors and vulnerable adults, in order that we may do everything possible to ensure that crimes such as those which have occurred are no longer repeated in the Church. The Commission is to promote local responsibility in the particular Churches, uniting their efforts to those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
, for the protection of all children and vulnerable adults.= Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or f
ormerly known as the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition

[Original text: English] [Vatican-provided text]


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Jeu 6 Oct - 18:54 (2016)    Sujet du message: VOUS VOULEZ TENIR VOTRE BEBE? ÇA VOUS COÛTERA 40 DOLLARS! Répondre en citant


Une autre manière pour vous faire comprendre que l'enfant nouveau-né appartient maintenant à l'état

© Flickr/ Donnie Ray Jones Insolite 15:10 06.10.2016(mis à jour 15:22 06.10.2016)

Le secteur de la santé aux États-Unis fait aujourd'hui de son mieux pour assurer le plus grand confort aux nouvelles ou futures mères, mais les efforts d'un de ses hôpitaux semblent un peu exagérés.

Médicaments, procédures, infirmières et docteurs vigilants: vu les services accordés aux nouvelles mères, il est bien logique que les hôpitaux présentent ensuite l'addition. Mais avez-vous jamais entendu parler d'un service prénommé « Peau à peau » ? Cette mère américaine en a fait l'amère expérience.

39,35 dollars (environ 35 euros), c'est le prix du mystérieux service « Skin to Skin », soit « Peau à Peau » de l'hôpital Valley dans l'État de l'Utah (ouest des Etats-Unis).

Qu'y a-t-il derrière ce terme ? L'hôpital suggère à la maman de payer… pour avoir le droit de tenir son bébé après lui avoir donné naissance via une césarienne.

« L'infirmière m'a permis de serrer notre fils contre la poitrine de ma femme, elle a même emprunté ma caméra pour nous prendre en photo. Tout le monde a si bien agi, nous avons eu une expérience tellement positive. Et nous n'avons pu que sourire, étonnés de voir le coût pour cela », a partagé le père Ryan Grassley sur Reddit, accompagnant son message de la photo de la facture. Donc, prenez garde, un jour on vous demandera peut-être aussi de payer pour prendre votre bébé dans les bras !


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Ven 4 Aoû - 06:15 (2017)    Sujet du message: FRANCE : LA SOLIDARITE EN ACTIONS Répondre en citant


Revue Hautes Alpes
Dossier no.11

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Lun 28 Aoû - 00:28 (2017)    Sujet du message: CANADA - ONTARIO : JUSTIN TRUDEAU IS PURE EVIL - BILL 89, M103 Répondre en citant



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gwXmT11wNc

Home  >  Bills & Lawmaking > Current Parliament > Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families A...

Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017

Projet de loi 89, Loi de 2017 sur le soutien à l'enfance, à la jeunesse et à la famille

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb5amN3MzHQ


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwt5R-MpYe8

Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Dim 17 Sep - 01:06 (2017)    Sujet du message: LAW PROFESSOR ATTACKS HOMESCHOOLERS – BELIEVES STATE SHOULD CHOOSE PARENTS FOR BABIES Répondre en citant


by Terri LaPoint
Health Impact News

A law professor at the oldest law school in the nation believes that there is no inherent right to parent one’s own children.
In an interview for CRTV about homeschooling, Professor James G. Dwyer told syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin that:

The reason that parent-child relationship exists is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.

An investigation into Dwyer’s writings and history reveals that this alarming statement was not an exaggerated statement taken out of context or misrepresented by a conservative journalist. Instead, the statement appears to be a foundational core belief held by a man who formerly worked in New York state family courts as a Law Guardian, which is the equivalent of a Guardian ad Litem.

Dwyer’s writings now influences policy within the family court system.


VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94iXbu7a_HM

James Dwyer teaches college students at William and Mary College in historic Williamsburg, Virginia. Thomas Jefferson, the third United States President and primary author of the Declaration of Independence, was instrumental in establishing William and Mary’s law school program.

Dwyer has been a prolific writer on the subject of children’s rights, and his views stand in direct contrast to the Founding Father who penned these immortal words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …

Instead of proclaiming the historical, biological, unalienable right of parents to have the liberty to teach their own children, Professor Dwyer told Michelle Malkin that:

That’s the state that empowers parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that.

That philosophy plays right into the hands of Child Protective Services officials who believe that it is the state’s right to decide who may or may not parent their own children.

As far back as 1994, Professor Dwyer wrote “Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights,” published in the California Law Review. In it, he challenged the assumption that “parents should have some rights in connection with the raising of their children,” going as far as to discuss provisions “under the legal regime I propose.”

Question of WHO Controls Children – Parents or State?
It is clear from the 1994 article that he resents any schooling taught from a religious perspective, whether it is from parents sending their children to a Christian school, or from parents rejecting the secularism taught in public schools who choose to homeschool and teach religious principles at home.
Perhaps not surprising is the fact that his own parents sent him to a private Catholic parochial school. (Source) His distaste for that experience colors his writings and philosophy.

Ironically, he wrote almost 25 years ago that:

No one should possess a right to control the life of another person no matter what reasons, religious or otherwise, he might have for wanting to do so.

However, if government, both state and federal, were to implement his philosophy and suggestions into the family court system, then the logical outcome is what currently happens to thousands of children within the foster care/adoption system – the lives of the children are controlled by the foster parents and the social workers.

Testimony given to Health Impact News from both parents and former foster children show that once Child Protective Services is involved, their lives are no longer their own, and CPS micromanages almost every aspect of their lives.

Should the State Choose Parents for All Babies Born?
It is readily apparent from his writings that he values “children’s rights,” but the basic inherent right of any child to have a relationship with their own biological parents seems to elude him. He even believes that it is the right of the state to choose the parents for a child.

In his article, “A Constitutional Birthright,” Dwyer argues:

Courts should recognize that newborn babies, much more clearly than birth parents, have fundamental interests at stake in the state’s selection of legal parents and, therefore, a much stronger claim to constitutional protection.

The reality is that children who are adopted almost universally have a drive as they grow older to find their “real parents.” It is largely adults who were adopted as children who push for open adoption. There is something within them that needs to find out where they came from and who they are.

In the name of “children’s rights,” lawyers and policy makers such as James Dwyer would deny them the fundamental right to know their own heritage and parents in the event that the state decides to “select” their parents for them.

This convoluted logic is the antithesis of parental rights, and at the same time, it stands in stark contrast to the biological, psychological, emotional, spiritual, physiological, and even health needs of children.

Children need their parents. Studies and child welfare data shows that children thrive and grow better in their own homes than in foster care. Even if their own home is less than ideal, children who are taken from their families and placed into foster care or adopted out are at least 6 times more likely to be raped, molested, abused or killed than if they were left at home.

Foster Care Children are Worse Off than Children in Troubled Homes – The Child Trafficking Business Lone Radical Voice or Influence for Government Policy?
Unfortunately, as radical as Professor Dwyer’s philosophy of parental and child rights is, he appears to have influence in policy making.

Professor James Dwyer (Source)

His works were cited as sources for an article, “The Harms of Homeschooling,” by Robin L. West, published in Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly.

The author sees homeschoolers as a threat to the state system, and says that the vast majority of referrals to Child Protective Services – 95% – come from public school teachers and administrators. (Note: The data we have found indicates that the figure was less than 20% in 2015, but school personnel still represent the largest group of reporters to CPS, followed by law enforcement, and medical personnel – Source.)

Other professors and colleagues at William and Mary College have praised his influence. Neal Devins has high praise for him, which should be alarming to every person in the United States who is concerned about parental rights:

Jim Dwyer has done what most academics aspire to–to change the conversation in their field. Jim’s work on children’s rights and his questioning of widely shared assumptions about parental authority have transformed the academic dialogue about the parent-child-state relationship.

State Control Over Children to Implement Mandatory Vaccines?

Dwyer argues that homeschooling can shield parents from being reported to CPS.

Another concern presented by West is that homeschooled children are less likely to be fully vaccinated, and thus present a theoretical public health risk.

Many parents would argue that the risk is in the vaccinations, but those who embrace the philosophies of Dwyer and West are more likely to ignore those parental concerns.

Dwyer Praises Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 Which Increased Child Trafficking
Among parents fighting to get their children home and out of the control of Child Protective Services, probably the most hated piece of legislation is the Clinton’s Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA).

The law provides financial incentives to state social workers and agencies to steal children away from their families, even if they have not abused or harmed their children.

There are billions of dollars secured by states through the Title IV-E funding in ASFA.

Child Kidnapping and Trafficking: A Lucrative U.S. Business Funded by Taxpayers Called “Foster Care”
Professor James Dwyer sees this as moving in the direction that he advocates. He praises ASFA and says that family law is:

becoming more child-centered and protective in order to avoid the social costs of harm to children. A great example is the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, which requires states to authorize termination of parental rights in some cases before a child has been maltreated, … (Source)

And so the war for America’s children continues, pitting parents against the State. Those who choose to homeschool their children are clearly standing in the way of the objectives of the State.

Medical Kidnapping is REAL!
See: Medical Kidnapping: A Threat to Every Family in America Today


Revenir en haut

En ligne

Inscrit le: 18 Juin 2011
Messages: 31 212

MessagePosté le: Mer 28 Mar - 06:35 (2018)    Sujet du message: WASHINGTON LEGALIZES HUMAN TRAFIICKING . BABIES CAN NOW BE BOUGHT AND SOLD COMMERCIALLY Répondre en citant


Posted on March 26, 2018 by Doreen Agostino

A show of loyalty to Satan in exchange for more power?

House Democrats voted to legalize the purchase and sale of human babies.” – 42nd District Rep. Luanne Van Werven, R-Lynden.
Washington — When most people think about surrogacy, they imagine a loving infertile or same-sex couple, unable to have children, who need a surrogate mother to give them a baby. Surrogacy has long been an amazing gift for those unable to have babies. However, when laws are passed that commercialize the separation of babies from their birth mother, very real risks to children arise.

When it comes to surrogacy laws in the United States, Washington is proving to be a third world country. Over the years, as countries have legalized “commercial surrogacy,” once they realize the horrors that it creates, they proceed to ban it as it creates a market for children to be bought and sold like commodities with no oversight as to where the babies end up.

After watching children being openly sold to human traffickers, in 2015, both Thailand and Nepal banned the act. In 2016, Mexico also banned commercial surrogacy, followed by India last year, and Cambodia this week.

The bans are a result of watching what happens when such laws are in place as it quite literally legalizes the buying and selling of children and creates a market for human trafficking. In spite of these bans, however, the “baby buyers” don’t go away, they just move their lobbying to other markets—and their sights have been set on Washington state.

As the Lynden-Tribune reports, last week, the Washington State House of Representatives approved legislation modifying the procedures for determining certain aspects of the legal parent-child relationship, known as the Washington Uniform Parentage Act. The bill makes changes to surrogacy agreements, allowing for “commercial surrogacy,” say 10 House Republican women including 42nd District Rep. Luanne Van Werven, R-Lynden.

Many legislators called the bill the most disturbing policy they have ever considered in their careers.

In a press release this week, lawmakers voiced their dissent, noting:
“The exchange of funds for carrying and giving birth to a child undermines the human dignity and rights of the mother and child. This type of business transaction is very different from altruistic surrogacy, which is a compassionate act of generosity and sacrifice that does not involve for-profit payment.

“In an effort to protect women and their children, Republicans offered 14 amendments that would have shielded women from this type of exploitation and prohibited the sale and purchase of children in our state. Sadly, they were all rejected on party-line votes.”

In spite of the disturbing nature of the bill, it passed the house by a vote of 50-47 and is now on the governor’s desk.

After the bill’s passage, house member Van Werven did not mince words when she noted that the bill quite literally legalizes the sale of babies.

“I would say that ‘human decency’ died in the dark this morning around 1 a.m. at your WA State Capitol. House Democrats voted to legalize the purchase and sale of human babies. In the six years I’ve served in the WA State House of Representatives, I have never been more disgusted by such a sinister piece of legislation,” Van Werven wrote.

“Currently in WA, any woman can offer to be a surrogate mother for couples who want a baby. Today, it is done out of altruistic giving, love, compassion and caring on the part of the surrogate mother. … For House Republicans, this bill was a matter of conscience. We all voted ‘no’ to protect the womb from being monetized and commercialized. This bill sets virtually no limits on the amount people will be able to sell or purchase a human baby for.

“What have we become as a state, selling human babies to the highest bidder? Is this who we are? I asked these questions on the House floor during the final debate. In its current form as it passed out of the House, the bill even permits convicted felons to purchase human babies.”

While it is certainly any mother’s right to give her child up for adoption, or to have a surrogate child for an infertile couple, removing the commercial incentive serves as a barrier to breeding babies for the sole purpose of trafficking.

Because of the loopholes in commercial surrogacy laws, the “parents” who purchase the babies do not undergo the same screenings as parents who are trying to adopt. Instead, they simply create a contract, pay money, and purchase a baby. Anyone with enough money—including human traffickers—will be able to go to Washington state, starting on Jan. 1, 2019, and purchase a human baby, no questions asked.

As the website ThemBeforeUs points out, we will never be able to track who is buying these children and where they are being taken. We won’t know the outcome for a child/children purchased by a man, grown in the uterus of a woman desperately in need of money. We won’t know that he left with the child, or multiple children, with the sole intent to sell them for sex. We won’t know that he has turned to surrogacy instead of plucking children off the street at the Port Authority bus terminal in order to prostitute them. Conveniently for him, “intended parent” offers far fewer entanglements than does kidnapping runaways.

If you think this sounds alarmist, consider the fact that people have been caught using commercial surrogacy ‘‘for the sole purpose of exploitation.’’ A couple in Australia was sentenced to 40 years in prison after they were found to have bought a baby through commercial surrogacy and then sold him for sex almost immediately after he was born. This little boy was born into a world of sexual abuse that went on for years all thanks to the commercialization of children.

Ironically enough, lawmakers across the United States and in Washington are pushing for stricter background checks when people purchase guns but as this law illustrates, if you want to buy a baby no background check is needed.

A crisis of consciousness indeed. Call Gov. Jay Inslee to urge him to veto SB 6037, the governor’s office phone number is 360-902-4111.

SOURCE http://thefreethoughtproject.com/washington-just-legalized-child-traffickin…

SENATE BILL REPORT SB 6037 [[i]Thanks to Judy for these links[/i]]

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2017-18/Pdf/Bill Reports/Senate/6037…



From Doreen

Child trafficking is a booming black market in the U.S.
Ben Swann

Published on Mar 27, 2018

Reality Check with Ben Swann: http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check… It’s a disheartening statistic: the child sex trafficking market is resulting in more than 1 million children abused around the world each year. So how has this market proliferated? And what’s being done to address it in the U.S.? This is Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.


Senate Bill 6037 - Olympia, Washington

VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1aAJeeGV3A

FPIW President, Joseph Backholm is on location at the capital in Olympia, Washington, covering Senate Bill 6037 on legalizing Contract Surrogacy in Washington State.

Revenir en haut
Contenu Sponsorisé

MessagePosté le: Aujourd’hui à 07:53 (2018)    Sujet du message: PROTECTION OU USURPATION DES DROITS PARENTAUX PAR L'ÉTAT? (PA2)

Revenir en haut
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Aller à la page: <  1, 2
Page 2 sur 2

Sauter vers:  

Index | Creer un forum | Forum gratuit d’entraide | Annuaire des forums gratuits | Signaler une violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com