Winnipeg mother Jacqui Kendrick investigated by the government for unlicensed parenting
McKenzie tweeted this story from CTV News in Canada, and I had to blog it.
Excerpt:
A Winnipeg mother says she was investigated by Child and Family Services simply for letting her children play in her backyard.
Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mom, says a CFS worker showed up unexpectedly at her door in early April. The worker told her they were doing a “well-being check” after receiving a complaint about her children being left unsupervised.
Kendrick has three children ages two, five and 10, who love to play in the family’s backyard after school. The backyard is fully fenced in, with a wood fence covering three sides, and a portion of the front covered by a chain link fence and gate.
Kendrick told CTV Winnipeg she’s always either with her kids or looking in on them from her living room windows.
[…]Still, the worker with the CFS — the the provincial body that apprehends abused and neglected children — insisted she was obligated to investigate and ask a few more questions.
“We had to go through a whole interview asking so many questions — asking me about if we’ve ever dealt with CFS before, what my childhood was like, how I punish my children, whether we drink or do drugs… She had to look to see where my kids slept. She had to see if we had enough food in the house,” Kendrick said.
“The whole time I’m sitting there, pretty much in tears, because I couldn’t understand what was going on.”
Well, this is just one big misunderstanding, so there will be no permanent record in government files, right? Wrong:
Manitoba’s Child and Family Services says it will not erase the file of a Winnipeg mother who was investigated for letting her children play in her backyard.
The agency would not comment on the specifics of the case of Jacqui Kendrick, a stay-at-home mother of three. But regardless of the results of their investigation, the agency said it would not erase the file because all documentation and records need to be accessible in the event that another concern arises in the future.
This is the kind of thing that parents should know about when there are deciding where to live. I can guarantee you that the person who called the government is no conservative. Now imagine a nosy neighbor decided that your views on social issues, e.g. – the definition of marriage, shouldn’t be passed on to your children. Or suppose a nosy neighbor didn’t like the church that your children attended. Or the yard sign for a conservative candidate in your yard. There are government agencies out there to help them to make sure that your children believe the “right” views – the things that the secular left want them to believe.
What secular leftism teaches people on the left is that some opinions and values are so wrong that they are 100% justified in using the government to stamp them out. Something to think about when you are deciding where to live and how open to be with your neighbors about what you believe. By all means, make a big impact. But be aware of what the other side thinks about what you’re doing.
Two dozen scruffy skateboarders launched perilous jumps in a soaring old church building here on a recent night, watched over by a mosaic likeness of Jesus and a solemn array of stone saints.
This is the Arnhem Skate Hall, an uneasy reincarnation of the Church of St. Joseph, which once rang with the prayers of nearly 1,000 worshipers.
It is one of hundreds of churches, closed or threatened by plunging membership, that pose a question for communities, and even governments, across Western Europe: What to do with once-holy, now-empty buildings that increasingly mark the countryside from Britain to Denmark?
[…]The closing of Europe’s churches reflects the rapid weakening of the faith in Europe, a phenomenon that is painful to both worshipers and others who see religion as a unifying factor in a disparate society.
[…]The Church of England closes about 20 churches a year. Roughly 200 Danish churches have been deemed nonviable or underused. The Roman Catholic Church in Germany has shut about 515 churches in the past decade.
But it is in the Netherlands where the trend appears to be most advanced. The country’s Roman Catholic leaders estimate that two-thirds of their 1,600 churches will be out of commission in a decade, and 700 of Holland’s Protestant churches are expected to close within four years.
[…]As communities struggle to reinvent their old churches, some solutions are less dignified than others. In Holland, one ex-church has become a supermarket, another is a florist, a third is a bookstore and a fourth is a gym. In Arnhem, a fashionable store called Humanoid occupies a church building dating to 1889, with racks of stylish women’s clothing arrayed under stained-glass windows.
In Bristol, England, the former St. Paul’s church has become the Circomedia circus training school. Operators say the high ceilings are perfect for aerial equipment like trapezes.
In Edinburgh, Scotland, a Lutheran church has become a Frankenstein-themed bar, featuring bubbling test tubes, lasers and a life-size Frankenstein’s monster descending from the ceiling at midnight.
Jason MacDonald, a supervisor at the pub, says he has never heard complaints about the reuse. “It’s for one simple reason: There are hundreds and hundreds of old churches and no one to go to them,” Mr. MacDonald said. “If they weren’t repurposed, they would just lie empty.”
Many churches, especially smaller ones, are becoming homes, and that has spawned an entire industry to connect would-be buyers with old churches.
The churches of England and Scotland list available properties online, with descriptions worthy of a realty firm. St. John’s church in Bacup, England, for example, is said to feature “a lofty nave as well as basement rooms with stone-vaulted ceilings,” and can be had for about $160,000.
There are many reasons why Christianity has declined in Europe, but surely the widespread embrace of left-wing economic policies – even by evangelical Christians – is one of the largest.
What accounts for cross-national variation in religiosity as measured by church attendance and non-religious rates? Examining answers from both secularization theory and the religious economy perspective, we assert that cross-national variation in religious participation is a function of government welfare spending and provide a theory that links macro-sociological outcomes with individual rationality. Churches historically have provided social welfare. As governments gradually assume many of these welfare functions, individuals with elastic preferences for spiritual goods will reduce their level of participation since the desired welfare goods can be obtained from secular sources. Cross-national data on welfare spending and religious participation show a strong negative relationship between these two variables after controlling for other aspects of modernization.
I have many friends in the UK who classify themselves as evangelical Christians. They almost all embrace moderate to leftist economics, and they complain to me about why the church is in decline, why there is no interest in apologetics, why they can’t find Christian girlfriends, why they can’t get speaking engagements. The answer is, of course, that by majoring only in theology and apologetics, they have crafted the rope that their secular allies in government are using to hang them. Leftism is embraced by European Christians in part because they don’t want to be like those dastardly Americans with their free enterprise system and their rule of law and their private property and their law-abiding gun ownership.
It just goes to show you why Christianity suffers when we focus on piety at the expense of practicality. Too much A. W. Tozer, not enough F.A. Hayek. I doubt my well-meaning UK Christian friends – who are so proud of their laughable NHS health care – even know who F.A. Hayek is. To think that Lady Thatcher ones brandished “The Constitution of Liberty” by F.A. Hayek and declared “this is what we believe!”. But ordinary UK Christians do not believe what she believes, and now they must reap what they sowed with their knee-jerk rejection of the free enterprise system. Ignorance of economics killed Christianity in Europe, and pious, risk-averse Christians were willing participants in the murder.
The pro-abortion California attorney general’s office raided on Tuesday the home of the undercover investigator who exposed Planned Parenthood’s trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts, according to the Center for Medical Progress.
David Daleiden, the head of the Center for Medical Progress, has been a target of abortion activists and their political friends ever since he released the first undercover video last summer showing a top Planned Parenthood official discussing the sale of aborted babies’ body parts. Since then, CMP has released a dozen undercover videos of the abortion giant’s employees and partner research groups, exposing their horrendous baby body parts trade. However, pro-abortion politicians have been ignoring the evidence of wrong-doing at Planned Parenthood and attacking CMP instead.
Daleiden released the following statement about the raid of his California home:
Today (Tuesday), the California Attorney General’s office of Kamala Harris, who was elected with tens of thousands of dollars from taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood, seized all video footage showing Planned Parenthood’s criminal trade in aborted baby parts, in addition to my personal information.
Ironically, while seizing my First Amendment work product, they ignored documents showing the illicit scheme between StemExpress and Planned Parenthood. This is no surprise–Planned Parenthood’s bought-and-paid-for AG has steadfastly refused to enforce the law against the baby body parts traffickers in our state, or even investigate them–while at the same time doing their bidding to harass and intimidate citizen journalists. We will pursue all remedies to vindicate our First Amendment rights.
Rachele Huennekens, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Kamala Harris, told CBS DFW that she could not comment on any ongoing investigation.
Harris, a Democrat who is running for U.S. Senate, is endorsed by the pro-abortion National Organization for Women. NOW describes her as a “longtime, vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood” who promised to investigate the Center for Medical Progress and fight for taxpayer funding of the abortion business.
This story reminds me of how the IRS treated conservative and Christian groups differently from liberal groups. It’s not the big oil company who hold up your application for non-profit status because you’re a conservative. It’s big government. That’s who has real power over you.
What is the solution?
One question you have to ask yourself is why the Democrats are so interested in helping out Planned Parenthood. The answer to that question is simple. The Democrats give the Planned Parenthood the taxpayer money. The Planned Parenthood uses the taxpayer money to start the abortion clinics to make more money. The Planned Parenthood gives the Democrats some of their profits as political contributions. If the Planned Parenthood goes out of business, then the political donations to the Democrats will stop. So, when the investigative journalists threaten the flow of political contributions to the Democrats, then the Democrats attack the investigative journalists.
Who is trying to solve the problem?
The Republican party tries to de-fund Planned Parenthood so that they don’t have any more money to perform abortions and then give the Democrats political contributions.
The House of Representatives voted today for legislation that would temporarily de-fund Planned Parenthood while an investigation continues into it s sale of aborted babies and their body parts.
The House voted 241 to 187 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business and 3 Democrats joining them. Three Republicans voted against the defunding bill while 183 Democrats voted against it.
Rep. Diane Black, a Tennessee Republican who is the pro-life lawmaker sponsoring the legislation and a nurse for more than 40 years, sponsored the legislation. The bill would freeze Planned Parenthood funding for one year while Congress conducts an investigation into its sales of aborted babies. The House vote would follow one the Senate had weeks ago, which saw Senate Democrats filibuster and block legislation to revoke $550 million in taxpayer funding. The Senate is expected to vote soon on a second attempt to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
A new Congressional report finds that de-funding the Planned Parenthood abortion business — even for one year — would save “several thousand” unborn babies from the nightmare of abortion. The report also finds de-funding Planned Parenthood would save the federal government $235 million.
During the debate, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy spoke on the House floor in defense of innocent human life and urged his colleagues to put a moratorium on Planned Parenthood funding in light of its barbaric practices.
“So if we know that this organization performs hundreds of thousands of abortions per year and we know that women have access to other sources for care, the question is, should we force taxpayers to fund a business that spends its money aborting 327,653 children per year? Should we force taxpayers to fund an organization whose barbaric practices, as vividly shown in those videos, disregard and devalue the sanctity of the most innocent human lives?” he asked.
He added: “There is no reason—absolutely no reason—that we must choose between funding women’s health and compelling taxpayers to support abortion.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) talked about how Planned Parenthood is not in the business of women’s health care and is really just an abortion company.
[…]“In the history of Planned Parenthood, they have never, ever, ever done one mammogram, because they are not certified to do mammograms. They bring people in and refer them out to get their mammograms. So, for those of us –like in my case, three daughters and a wife of 37 years –look, I want good women’s healthcare. So, let’s fund it,” he said. “But, let’s give it directly to the facilities that will do the mammograms and not Planned Parenthood – for them to take their cut.”
President Barack Obama has already threatened to veto the bill.
Hillary Clinton also spoke out in favor of for-profit organ-harvesting from born-alive children.
After today’s House vote to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, Hillary Clinton took to twitter to adamantly defend taxpayer funding for the abortion company.
The Republicans also want to hold Planned Parenthood criminally responsible for performing abortions on born-alive babies.
The House of Representatives today approved a pro-life bill that would hold the Planned Parenthood abortion business criminally liable for harvesting body parts from aborted babies who are technically still alive.
The center for Medical Progress has released 10 videos catching and exposing Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies and their body parts. One of the most shocking videos caught the nation’s biggest abortion business harvesting the brain of an aborted baby who was still alive.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sponsored by pro-life Congressman Trent Franks would make failure to provide standard medical care to children born alive during an abortion a federal crime. It would also apply stronger penalties in cases where an overt act is taken to kill the abortion survivor.
[…]Congressman Chris Smith implored the House to pass the bill.
“Undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress have again brought into sharp focus that some babies actually survive abortion,” the New jersey congressman said.
“Dr. Savita Ginde, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains says ‘sometimes we get—if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure—they are intact…’ that is, Madame Speaker, born alive. Breathing, crying, gasping for air. One fetal tissue broker describes on the video watching a ‘fetus …just fall out.’ And left to die.”
“We have a duty to protect these vulnerable children from violence, exploitation and death. Humanitarian due diligence requires that born alive babies be taken to a hospital to obtain care and enhance prospects of survival,” Smith added. “Abortion clinics have no incentive whatsoever to save the child. Abortion clinics do not have neonatal intensive care units—they are in the business of killing babies, not saving them.”
“The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 3504), authored by pro-life champion Trent Franks simply says any child who survives an abortion must be given the same care as any other premature baby born at the same gestational age. This legislation builds on the landmark Born Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 authored by Steve Chabot by adding important enforcement provisions,” he concluded.
The House voted 248 to 177 for the bill with 239 Republicans voting for the bill and 5 Democrats joining them. No Republicans voted against the pro-life bill while 177 Democrats voted against it. One member voted present.
A pro-life Senator says he will introduce the Senate version of the bill on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse told LifeNews.com that he will introduce companion legislation in the Senate when Congress resumes its work on Monday.
He said: “If this isn’t the most non-controversial sentence in American politics, it’s time to check our national conscience: newborn babies must receive care and attention. Societies are judged by how we care for the vulnerable and surely anyone with a heart— regardless of where they stand on the abortion debate— should be able to agree that our laws should protect newborns. I’m grateful that a bipartisan majority of the House stood up for babies and I look forward to introducing companion legislation in the Senate next week.”
Despite passage of the bill, the Obama administration says President Barack Obama would veto the measure.
There were a lot of “pro-life” people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I personally spoke to young evangelicals who claimed to be pro-life who but voted for Obama to stop global warming and to get condoms and free health care. Maybe next time we have an election, the pro-life people can vote pro-life for a change. Even if the Democrat is really, really good-looking, and has likability, and a nice way of speaking – let’s still vote pro-life, even then.
WINTERY KNIGHT 