Pediatrician are now threatening parents with “filing a CPS Report” on them if they don’t participate in their vaccine programs.
Honestly, what they are not telling you is “why” 100% participation is being required for all patients. What they are noting telling the parents is the pediatrician is paid tens of thousands of dollars by the insurance companies for vaccinating based on a 63% participation rate. In other words, if enough parents don’t participate the pediatrician will lose the entire bonus; its all or nothing. So, in reality, its about the money, it has NOTHING to do with the efficacy, safety or health and welfare of the infant or child. See one example here: BlueCross® BlueShield® 2016 Performance Recognition Program.
So now one can understand why, for example Dr. Mike is so adamant about requiring everyone of his “patents” getting vaccinated.
Based on what this blogger has discovered, seriously reconsider taking your child to a pediatrician or at the very least, do your homework before hand. Ask your pediatrician if he or she participates in these types of insurance incentive programs. Ask your pediatrician if they vaccinate their own children. Or you risk having Child Protective Services called on you; this is a nightmare you don’t want to have happen to you or your family. There a lot of very good alternatives to the traditional allopathic physicians route, that are legitimately efficacious, safe and wholesome for your children.
Pediatrician Dr. Mike Ginsberg posted a stern message about his opinion of “anti-vaxxers” (families who opt not to vaccinate) on his Facebook page back in 2015. The message gained attention at the time, and it’s going viral all over again.
“In my practice, you will vaccinate and you will vaccinate on time,” Ginberg’s post, which has since been taken down, begins. He continued on to say that parents who choose not to vaccinate will be asked to leave his practice. What’s more: “I will file a CPS [child protective services] report (not that they will do anything) for medical neglect, too,” he writes.
Here’s his message in full:
“IN MY PRACTICE YOU WILL VACCINATE AND YOU WILL VACCINATE ON TIME. YOU WILL NOT GET YOUR OWN ‘SPACED-OUT’ SCHEDULE THAT INCREASES YOUR CHILD’S RISK OF ILLNESS OR ADVERSE EVENT. I WILL NOT HAVE MEASLES-SHEDDING CHILDREN SITTING IN MY WAITING ROOM. I WILL ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT VACCINE AND PRESENT YOU WITH FACTS, BUT IF YOU WILL NOT VACCINATE THEN YOU WILL LEAVE MY PRACTICE. I WILL FILE A CPS REPORT (NOT THAT THEY WILL DO ANYTHING) FOR MEDICAL NEGLECT, TOO.
I HAVE PATIENTS WHO ARE PREMATURE INFANTS WITH WEAK LUNGS AND HEARTS. I HAVE KIDS WITH COMPLEX CONGENITAL HEART DISEASE. I HAVE KIDS WHO ARE ON CHEMOTHERAPY FOR ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA WHO CANNOT GET ALL OF THEIR VACCINES. IN SHORT, I HAVE PATIENTS WHO HAVE TRUE SPECIAL NEEDS AND TRUE HEALTH ISSUES WHO COULD SUFFER SEVERE INJURY OR DEATH BECAUSE OF YOUR MAGICAL BELIEF THAT YOUR KID IS SOMEHOW MORE SPECIAL THAN OTHER CHILDREN AND THAT WHAT’S GOOD FOR OTHER CHILDREN IS NOT GOOD FOR YOURS. THIS PEDIATRICIAN IS NOT PUTTING UP WITH IT.
Christian parents need to do their homework on this article. Because he is absolutely correct, if the baby was born in a hospital and the parents did not make a proper claim at birth. The state takes jurisdiction and grants the parents privileges, i.e., parental rights over the child which can be revoked. However, if the parents make the proper claim at birth and do not grant jurisdiction to the state, the state has no say in how the parent decide to educate their children and can not revoke parental rights.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
What is it going to take for the judiciary to do its job and indict these Bank Directors and CEO’s and all involved with the fraud surrounding this illegal activity? Has this country gone too far down the slippery slope of total corruptions and complete debauchery?
What no one is reporting on is the fact these banks have stolen everyone’s identity through copyrights, patents and trademarks. The one who owns the copyright, owns the data, i.e., identity. This is done when the unsuspecting homeowner signs documents to get a ‘mortgage’ on their home. Wells Fargo is the custodian of all these bogus mortgage accounts. This is the real story behind all these “bogus” accounts. The question needs to be asked, do these accounts contain funds? If so, where did these funds originate? Are the name holders of these accounts entitlement holders of these funds?
As the tally of fake Wells Fargo accounts balloons to 3.5 million, Congress has yet to discipline the executives, while the financial giant has only paid fines. A coalition of 33 groups is now demanding new hearings and for the bank to be held accountable.
Wells Fargo and Company increased its estimate of how many accounts were created by 67 percent Thursday. The mega bank issued shocking new disclosures, showing 1.4 million more bogus customer accounts had been created, a significant increase from previous estimates, the New York Times reported.
In addition, Wells Fargo admitted to yet another impropriety, stating that they enrolled more than a half-million customer accounts into their online bill pay service without notifying them. The embattled bank has since agreed to pay out $910,000 to customers who accrued fees or charges related to the unknown accounts.
“We are working hard to ensure this never happens again and to build a better bank for the future,” Wells Fargo CEO Timothy J. Sloane said in a statement, the Times reported.
There has not yet been word if executives with the bank will be summoned back to Washington to face lawmakers for yet another round of questioning following last year’s Capitol Hill hearing with then-CEO John Stumpf.
During that hearing, Wells Fargo and their former CEO paid big bucks, but no other actions have been taken by Congress to thwart future offenses by the company. Now, 33 organizations have banded together to call for new congressional hearings relating to Wells Fargo’s questionable practices.
Two groups, Americans for Financial Reform and Public Citizen, are leading the charge to stage new hearings, The left-leaning organizations sent a letter Thursday to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, asking to bring Wells Fargo executives back to Capitol Hill to answer for the newly found malpractices.
US Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), head of the Senate Banking Committee, tweeted, “Wells Fargo harmed millions more customers than originally disclosed, and continues to avoid accountability.”
And Representative Maxine Waters (D-California), suggested in a statement that Wells Fargo’s wrongful acts may be too big to manage.
“This disgraceful, illegal, and widespread misconduct is exactly why I will be introducing legislation that breaks up banks – like Wells Fargo – that repeatedly engage in consumer abuses, so that they can never harm consumers again,” she said, according to Bloomberg.
Progressive firebrand US Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) called Wells Fargo’s new disclosure “unbelievable” in a tweet Thursday.
I was taught as a young boy by my mother, “…be sure your sins will find you out.” You see the truth is like cream – it always rises to the top. Whenever someone tries to suppress it with lies and deception, it never works – sooner or later the truth comes out. Hopefully, these treasonous conspiratorial perpetrators – the Clintons, Comey, Lynch, Mueller, et al. will be exposed for the criminals they are…
What former FBI Director James Comey did is disgusting, despicable and a breach of trust of his duties as the highest ranking law enforcement agent. In my view, he, along with Lynch and the Clintons ought to be indicted and imprisoned for their crimes against the American people.
The New York Post’s John Crudele had an interesting column outlining how the bogus Democrat/Media/Deep State instigated Trump investigation is backfiring on Democrats as the American people grow increasingly weary of repeated allegations without actual proof.Beyond that fatigue is something even more concerning for Democrats. The investigation is actually shedding light on wrongdoing by figures like Hillary Clinton and James Comey – NOT Donald Trump.
Check it out:
There’s a lot going on in the Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump/Russia investigation that all the highfalutin’ newspapers that cover politics are still trying to ignore.
Well, investors had better know this stuff before it bites them in the assets. So here goes.
Remember, the Republicans now control this committee. So bad news isn’t going to be stifled anymore.
Clinton, you probably remember, “lost” her private emails, which she’d been storing on a personal computer server. Comey chastised her harshly in a televised speech but then said there was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution.
Clinton’s emails, which were stolen by the Russians, have never been found. But as I’ve mentioned numerous times, the messages are still in the possession of the National Security Agency (NSA), which offered to give them to the FBI.
Comey turned down that offer, according to a source who has been very reliable.
I’ve also mentioned that Comey fibbed when he said his agents unanimously agreed that prosecution was unnecessary. In fact, my source says that FBI agents were irate about the decision not to go after Clinton.
The controversy got pretty intense, which may be why Comey forced agents who worked on the Clinton matter to sign additional nondisclosure agreements.
There was another important development last week when a federal judge ordered the FBI to disclose more details about how it handled the Clinton investigation. That could put Comey in a hotter spot than he’s already in.
What’s this got to do with the investigation of Trump and any influence the Russians may have had over the last presidential election? Absolutely nothing.
But as I’ve said before, any investigation of Trump was likely to backfire when investigators started to look at the Democrats and their dealings.