One nation under God

Liberty and Justice for All

2006-07-31

The Apparent State of the Parent State

After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Starchild Abraham Cherrix couldn't take it anymore. He rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease was active again.

Abraham and his parents, Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague, Virginia, chose to pursue alternative treatment rather than the massive dose of chemotherapy and radiation his doctors prescribed. 

The doctor contacted the County Department of Social Services who investigated and a social worker asked a juvenile court judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. The judge issued a temporary order finding the parents neglectful and awarded shared custody of their son with the county, requiring the parents to take him to the hospital and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for the disease.

Accomack County Circuit Court Judge Glen Tyler has since overturned the order and returned Abraham to the full custody of his parents. This doesn't mean, however, that the problem is solved. They will be returning to court next month to battle with the government for the right to choose what they feel is the best kind of treatment for their son.

Since when do parents not have the right to make decisions on behalf of their children for what they deem to be in the best interest of their children?

Since when does the government has the right to ORDER anyone to submit to any medical procedure or treatment?

Having lost loved ones to cancer even after chemotherapy, and some who still suffer, I have seen the devastation of the disease and the brutality of the treatment. Once started, you begin to wonder if it’s not the disease will that will kill them, but the treatment. I'm not sure they would or could do it all over again; and may have opted for less conventional treatment had alternatives been known and available to them.

I've seen others who refused further chemotherapy treatment and were sent home - supposedly to die within weeks - yet who live a cancer-free life more than 30 years later.

If someone makes a decision that will result ultimately in his death, isn't that his decision and his family's? I would think that in order to take away that right requires proof that they are incompetent. I don't want a court forcing me to undergo treatment of any kind because they claim it will work and the treatment I've chosen will not.

Will Social Services be pounding on your door when they disagree with the decision you've made about the health care of your child?

Gina Weiss

.................................

FED Up with the government? Now you can do something and get paid too!

2006-07-19

Teen Cell Phone Users Targeted in New Government Regulation

A recent vote in the North Carolina House bans cell phone use while driving for teens younger than 18. Motorists under the age of 18 could face a $25 fine if they're caught using a cell phone and could also face an extension to their graduated driving period.

Granted, this is not a first where cell phones are concerned. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, at least ten states have some sort of cell phone ban right now; most of these bans already targeting learner's permit/intermediate license holders, and school bus drivers.

Reading these statistics has given me pause to ponder.

Undoubtedly, driver awareness (or lack of) is a safety concern. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that distracted drivers contribute to 20 - 30 percent of all motor vehicle crashes.

The overall number of wireless phone subscribers in the United States having increased dramatically in the past decade and more than 190 million people now using wireless services, the use of cell phones in vehicles has drawn intense interest from legislators even though drivers have been distracted in cars as long as there have been cars.
 
State crash statistics do not provide a widely accepted picture of which specific distractions cause motor vehicle crashes. Eating and drinking, personal grooming, reading and writing, unruly children, unsecured pets, smoking, and using a radio or CD player also contribute to distraction.

I think most of us would agree that the majority of accidents involving teens is more than likely due to lack of driving experience more than recklessness. It may also be fair to say that a teen's technical know-how concerning their cell phones may far outweigh their adult counterpart's knowledge on the average. 

So why target a teen's cell phone? Why not simply extend their graduated driving period and allow them the experience they need in maneuvering a motor vehicle safely? 

Could it be, as in the takeover of the tobacco industry, with its' exorbitant taxation of tobacco and banning of smoking in many public areas (and in some cases, your vehicle) - in the guise of "protecting us", already having the public believing it can control the air that they breathe on Earth - we are being led once again into further government regulation and control over another multi-billion dollar industry?

Ronald McDonald, stop wrapping those burgers. You may soon be closing the drive-thru.

Gina Weiss

FED UP with the government greenbacks? Check out gold and silver Liberty Dollars.

2006-07-02

"Why Won't They Answer?" Tour

In July 2004, I became a petitioner, along with almost 2000 other Americans, filing a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Government to confront a government that refuses to answer our questions; seeking to have the federal Judiciary declare - for the first time in history - the constitutional meaning of the First Amendment Petition clause including the right of the People to enforce the right to petition if redress is denied.

We believe the right to petition is uppermost of the Bill of Rights and that its effect is the direct exercise of popular sovereignty - the first principle of the founding documents that declares government is the servant of man. We seek to reclaim popular sovereignty by enforcing the long-forgotten First Amendment Right to Petition.

The Petitions For Redress include the abuse of war making authority, abuse of rights in the "USA Patriot Act", abuse of taxing authority, and the abuse of the money & banking powers. The case is currently under appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals in DC.

A 71-day "Why Won't They Answer?" tour has begun; to arouse the awareness of the People to the meaning and importance of the First Amendment’s “Petition Clause” and the significance of our lawsuits, in all 50 states this summer.

As we approach and celebrate the 230th anniversary of our Country's Independence, and the U.N. makes plans to trash the second amendment of our Constitution in New York, I ask that you consider joining us in defending against erosion of Constitutional rights to bear arms, own property, enjoy privacy, obtain due process, and have an honest, ethical government free of corruption.

Let's ask “Why?” and let the federal government know that we want them to answer the questions!

Gina Weiss

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

No Newer Entries No Older Entries