Progressives Destroy Family of 12

[The2ndAmendment]

I just got off the phone with the police department in order to confirm the authenticity of the story
: (270) 756-2361

I had to school since it sounded too absurd, but it turns it out, it's true!

Save Our Family One Blessed Little Family vs Breckinridge KY
Save Our Family by Joe Naugler - GoFundMe

Joe and Nicole Naugler live on a homestead in rural Kentucky. They live a very simple life. They garden and raise animals. They are industrious people trying to teach their children how to live right.

They have ten children who are homeschooled on the homestead. They contribute to the success of the family crops and livestock, all while learning about the amazing beauty of life.

On May 6th, 2015, Breckinridge Co. Sheriff’s officers came to their home, acting on an anonymous tip, and entered their property and home without a warrant and without probable cause. Nicole was at home with the two oldest children, while Joe was away with the others. When the officers left the home, they attempted to block the access road to the family property. Nicole and the two boys got in their car to leave the family property. The got only a short way down the road before the officers pulled Nicole over.

During this stop, sheriffs deputies took their two oldest boys from Nicole’s custody, providing her no justification or documentation to support their action. Nicole was able to contact Joe briefly by telephone, but only for a short period of time, because she needed to use her phone to record the events.

Joe was able to arrange transportation to meet his wife where the stop had taken place. At that point, Nicole had been taken into custody for disorderly conduct (for not passively allowing the Sheriff to take her boys) and resisting arrest. Joe attempted to get out of the car to speak with the officers and his wife, and to recover the vehicle Nicole had been driving. The Sheriff, with his hand on his sidearm, ordered Joe back into the car. Joe complied with that request. The sheriff informed Joe that he had every intention of making this as difficult as possible for them and that their car would be impounded, despite the fact that Joe was there onsite to recover it.

A friend, who had driven Joe to the location, got out of the car to speak with the Sheriff. She was able to convince the Sheriff to let Joe recover the vehicle. Joe also recovered Nicole’s cell phone, which had been recording audio the entire time.

The Sheriff ordered Joe to turn the remaining eight children over to Breckinridge County Sheriff’s deputies by 10:00 a.m., and threatened him with felony charges if he does not comply.

Police Seize 10 Children From Off-Grid Homeschool Family Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Police seized ten children from an “off grid” homeschool family in Kentucky on Wednesday after receiving an anonymous tip about the family’s traditional lifestyle.

The nightmare story began when sheriff’s officers set up a blockade around Joe and Nicole Naugler’s rural property before entering the premises. Eight of the kids were out with their father but Nicole and two of her oldest children were at home. Nicole attempted to drive away but was subsequently stopped and arrested for resisting (attempting to prevent officers from taking her two boys away).

The sheriff then demanded Joe Naugler turn over the other eight children by 10am the next day or face felony charges, an order with which he complied.

“They are an extremely happy family,” said family friend Pace Ellsworth, who asserts that the Nauglers were targeted because of their “back to basics life” and their decision to homeschool their children.

Friends reported no concerns about how the children were being treated by the parents, who follow an educational model called “unschooling” where the children decide their own curriculum based on the subjects that interest them and what their strengths are.

“This is the natural way to live,” said Ellsworth. “It’s actually a growing movement. They want to have a personal education and not a factory education. They are completely open about their life. Everyone is learning by living. They are all extremely intelligent.”

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind-of-a private notion of children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;

5. and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES;

6. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

Ok, she states a problem: We're not investing enough/correctly into education.

Then she diagnoses the cause of the problem,

Then she proposes the solution.

She says her solution will better our investments into education.
---------------------------

Here are the Questions:​

Instructions: Only use the Transcript to answer these questions.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

3: What is her solution to the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? [It is your job to answer this]

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem. This is derived from Line 6.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? That parents are sovereign over their children - From Line 1, Line 2

3: What is her solution to the problem? To make government sovereign over your children - From lines 3 and 5

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? To break (force) the idea of parental sovereignty over their children - From line 4

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem - This is derived from Line 6.

--------------------------

In depth answers:

1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show (that are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives) that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.

But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "we'll make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.

2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the Cause of the problem. She says in Line 1:
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."

Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.

Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.

3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).

We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."

So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"

Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.

Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "

First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.

In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.

So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.

If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.

Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.

Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.

Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.

Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.

Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"

This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.

2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.


Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.

Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?

Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?

No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.

No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.

----------------------------

Overall, this is a very well designed and intentionally deceptive script. It conveys MILLIONS of words by only using hundred; it presents a dangerous and repulsive ideology, whilst masquerading a caring and loving philosophy.

----------------------------

However, if Progressives would like to give me their alternate explanation of the TRANSCRIPT, by using the TRANSCRIPT in their explanation, please, do so, I don't' want to think that this is what MSNBC (Progressive Headquarters) was trying to preach.

Added:

UH-OH

NICOLE NAUGLER s May 6th 2015 arrest in Breckinridge County KY

 

[boedicca]

Home schooling is one of the biggest weapons against Progs.

Public education these days is basically child abuse.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

 

[boedicca]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

Indeed. It Takes A Village to enslave a child's mind in service to The State.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

Indeed. It Takes A Village to enslave a child's mind in service to The State.

Our children attend private schools, there is no way in hell the left is getting their grimy meat hooks into them

 

[bodecea]

This story smells.....also this story takes place in a Red (rural) area of a Red state.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

See my OP, I actually exposed that very same topic.

 

[bodecea]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

Indeed. It Takes A Village to enslave a child's mind in service to The State.

Our children attend private schools, there is no way in hell the left is getting their grimy meat hooks into them

Those of us who have our children attend public school very much thank you for putting YOUR children in a private school.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This story smells.....also this story takes place in a Red (rural) area of a Red state.

You can call the police department. I put the number in the OP. You will discover it is true.

 

[bodecea]

I just got off the phone with the police department in order to confirm the authenticity of the story
: (270) 756-2361

I had to school since it sounded too absurd, but it turns it out, it's true!

Save Our Family One Blessed Little Family vs Breckinridge KY
Save Our Family by Joe Naugler - GoFundMe

Joe and Nicole Naugler live on a homestead in rural Kentucky. They live a very simple life. They garden and raise animals. They are industrious people trying to teach their children how to live right.

They have ten children who are homeschooled on the homestead. They contribute to the success of the family crops and livestock, all while learning about the amazing beauty of life.

On May 6th, 2015, Breckinridge Co. Sheriff’s officers came to their home, acting on an anonymous tip, and entered their property and home without a warrant and without probable cause. Nicole was at home with the two oldest children, while Joe was away with the others. When the officers left the home, they attempted to block the access road to the family property. Nicole and the two boys got in their car to leave the family property. The got only a short way down the road before the officers pulled Nicole over.

During this stop, sheriffs deputies took their two oldest boys from Nicole’s custody, providing her no justification or documentation to support their action. Nicole was able to contact Joe briefly by telephone, but only for a short period of time, because she needed to use her phone to record the events.

Joe was able to arrange transportation to meet his wife where the stop had taken place. At that point, Nicole had been taken into custody for disorderly conduct (for not passively allowing the Sheriff to take her boys) and resisting arrest. Joe attempted to get out of the car to speak with the officers and his wife, and to recover the vehicle Nicole had been driving. The Sheriff, with his hand on his sidearm, ordered Joe back into the car. Joe complied with that request. The sheriff informed Joe that he had every intention of making this as difficult as possible for them and that their car would be impounded, despite the fact that Joe was there onsite to recover it.

A friend, who had driven Joe to the location, got out of the car to speak with the Sheriff. She was able to convince the Sheriff to let Joe recover the vehicle. Joe also recovered Nicole’s cell phone, which had been recording audio the entire time.

The Sheriff ordered Joe to turn the remaining eight children over to Breckinridge County Sheriff’s deputies by 10:00 a.m., and threatened him with felony charges if he does not comply.

Police Seize 10 Children From Off-Grid Homeschool Family Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind

Police seized ten children from an “off grid” homeschool family in Kentucky on Wednesday after receiving an anonymous tip about the family’s traditional lifestyle.

The nightmare story began when sheriff’s officers set up a blockade around Joe and Nicole Naugler’s rural property before entering the premises. Eight of the kids were out with their father but Nicole and two of her oldest children were at home. Nicole attempted to drive away but was subsequently stopped and arrested for resisting (attempting to prevent officers from taking her two boys away).

The sheriff then demanded Joe Naugler turn over the other eight children by 10am the next day or face felony charges, an order with which he complied.

“They are an extremely happy family,” said family friend Pace Ellsworth, who asserts that the Nauglers were targeted because of their “back to basics life” and their decision to homeschool their children.

Friends reported no concerns about how the children were being treated by the parents, who follow an educational model called “unschooling” where the children decide their own curriculum based on the subjects that interest them and what their strengths are.

“This is the natural way to live,” said Ellsworth. “It’s actually a growing movement. They want to have a personal education and not a factory education. They are completely open about their life. Everyone is learning by living. They are all extremely intelligent.”

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind-of-a private notion of children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;

5. and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES;

6. Once it's everybody's responsibility, and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

1. We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we have always had a private notion of our children.

2. [Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

3. We never had a collective notion that these are OUR children.

4. So part of it is that we have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents, or that kids belong to their families.

5. We must recognize that kids belong to the WHOLE COMMUNITY;

6. Once it is everyone's responsibility, and not just the household's [responsibility], we will start making better investments.

Ok, she states a problem: We're not investing enough/correctly into education.

Then she diagnoses the cause of the problem,

Then she proposes the solution.

She says her solution will better our investments into education.
---------------------------

Here are the Questions:​

Instructions: Only use the Transcript to answer these questions.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

3: What is her solution to the problem? [It is your job to answer this]

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? [It is your job to answer this]

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem. This is derived from Line 6.

1: Which problem does she identify? That we aren't investing enough/properly into education - This is derived from Line 1.

2: What does she claim to be the cause of the problem? That parents are sovereign over their children - From Line 1, Line 2

3: What is her solution to the problem? To make government sovereign over your children - From lines 3 and 5

4: What are the means by which to implement her solution? To break (force) the idea of parental sovereignty over their children - From line 4

5: What will be the end result? That our investments in public education will succeed once we implement the solution to the cause of the problem - This is derived from Line 6.

--------------------------

In depth answers:

1: This promotion ad starts with the premise that we are not investing enough into education; however, statistics show (that are well agreed by both liberals and conservatives) that we spend more than any nation on earth per student, and get the worst return on that money as well.

But, if we look at the end of line 6, she says "we'll make better investments," so we'll give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her problem is that we don't invest CORRECTLY into education, instead of not investing enough.

2: She immediately identifies what she believes is the Cause of the problem. She says in Line 1:
"beCause we have always had a private notion of our children."

Thus, she claims the Cause of the problem is that Americans believe in parental sovereignty over their children, unless someone can else can dispute what "private notion" means.

Then, in Line 2, she mocks and derides the idea of parental sovereignty:
[Sarcastic] 'Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.'

Thus she believes that any person who believes that their kid is theirs, that they have sovereignty over their children, who believes that they are ultimately responsible for their child, is a person who should be derided.

3: Her solution to the problem is that we must declare that the government is sovereign over our children, not the parents, that parents may only have their children as a PRIVILEGE that is graciously extended to us by government, a privilege that can be revoked for any or no reason (such as teaching them something against the government's values).

We get this from Line 3 and Line 5:
"We haven't had a very collective notion of these are OUR children."

So, since we've translated "private notion" to "parental sovereignty," then we must translate "collective notion" to "government sovereignty." Although it is easy to see how "notion" is being used as euphemism for "sovereignty," how are we translating "collective" to "government?"

Well, she talks about "public education," with public education being the entire premise of her very short speech. Unless you know some form of public education that is NOT run by government, I cannot see how the word "collective" (which itself is often associated with Marxist ideology) can be construed to any other meaning.

Now let's investigate Line 5,
"and recognize that kids belong to WHOLE COMMUNITIES; "

First, we must draw our attention to the word "Community." So far, she has talked about Public Education, and thus, Government; she has also invoked the idea of "government sovereignty." People often confuse society and government, and will use the word "community" to mean either when they cannot decide which term [society or government] to use, or to conceal which one they actually mean.

In the words of Thomas Paine (Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

However, we're not here to engage in discourse on Common Sense, I quoted this to show the difference between society and government.

So let's return to the word "Community," in Line 5.

If she is saying that children belong to the "Community," as in society, then it contradicts her own premise that government should have sovereignty, because society and government are separate entities.

Therefore, in order for her own thesis to make sense, the word Community must imply government, which solidifies the logical foundation of her argument. To say that she actually meant "society" would only serve to turn her speech into an incoherent mess, as the speech would be plagued with an illogical union of phrases.

Thus, we finally conclude that her "solution" is to transfer the sovereignty and absolute responsibility over children from the parents and families to the government. This doesn't mean that the Government is going to rush in and take your kids, it simply means that legally, the government is the final authority over your children.

Today, the government can only claim sovereignty over your children if you do something that warrants the removal of your sovereignty (custody), such as abusing your children. Only then may the government become involved, and via due process, the government must prove its case against you.

Her solution is to make government sovereign right from the start, and thus allow them to remove custody of your children for any and no reason, because the custody was already theirs to begin with.

Now, how does she plan to implement this solution? We need only look at Line 4:
"So part of it is that we have to BREAK through our kind-of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families;"

This implies the following:
1) They must convince parents that the government knows better, because the government has "experts" in raising, teaching and nuturing your children. If they can convince us of this idea, then we will Consent to transfer sovereignty of our children over to government, without any resistance.

2) For parents who will not agree to this, then the sovereign relationship between mother and child must be BROKEN, by convincing the child to Consent to the transfer of Sovereignty from the parents to the Public Education (Government) system. This would be accomplished by teaching them these ideas while they are young and then fooling them into signing some sort of devious contract that would complete the transfer of sovereignty.


Finally, she says that once her solution is implemented, our failed investments will magically better themselves, because the government will now have sovereignty over your children, instead of the parents. The problem isn't the Government, it's You!
----------------------------
If you don't agree with my interpretation, ask yourselves the following:
Did she say that we weren't investing correctly into education? The obvious answer here is yes, however, I'll let you privately answer the rest of the questions.

Ok, since she says we're not investing correctly into Public Education, who does she blame the problem on, the government, or the people?

Furthermore, she never even said why our investments have failed. Has she mentioned that there are children whose schools are decrepit and dilapidated? Has she mentioned that there are children without desks? Without textbooks? With paper? Without computers? Without pens and pencils?

No, she says that the "people" are the problem, not government, and that government can fix the problem.

No, she never mentions that children are missing proper supplies, or that their educational facilities are either too small or not maintained correctly (or both), she says that YOU having the final authority over your children is the problem.

----------------------------

Overall, this is a very well designed and intentionally deceptive script. It conveys MILLIONS of words by only using hundred; it presents a dangerous and repulsive ideology, whilst masquerading a caring and loving philosophy.

----------------------------

However, if Progressives would like to give me their alternate explanation of the TRANSCRIPT, by using the TRANSCRIPT in their explanation, please, do so, I don't' want to think that this is what MSNBC (Progressive Headquarters) was trying to preach.

Don't forget to send them money, folks.

 

[bodecea]

This story smells.....also this story takes place in a Red (rural) area of a Red state.

You can call the police department. I put the number in the OP. You will discover it is true.

Tell you what...give us a news link...not a self-serving "send us money" link.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

When you hate government enough to throw the wellbeing of children under the bus, you have descended to a whole new level of depravity.

 

[bodecea]

So...I googled the family....only hits are blogs for homeschooling and living off the grid....with some nice pictures of the family and, of course, calls for money.

 

[bodecea]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

When you hate government enough to throw the wellbeing of children under the bus, you have descended to a whole new level of depravity.

I see no problem with people homeschooling, living off the grid...my problem is with this story. I believe it's nothing but a money making scheme.

 

[Yarddog]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

Dont know if there is more to this story? no other history of abuse? just on the face of it though it sounds very out of line, think ive heard of this happening before somwhere,
So they were practicing diversity of culture and the authorities dont like it. Guess they will have to crack down on the Amish next and some of the Somali communities who dont assimilate well, Im sure they wouldn't mind having their children taken away. Its always easy for them to pick on some isolated family somewhere that doesnt belong to a group

 

[The2ndAmendment]

This story smells.....also this story takes place in a Red (rural) area of a Red state.

You can call the police department. I put the number in the OP. You will discover it is true.

Tell you what...give us a news link...not a self-serving "send us money" link.

A news link from CNN or MSNBC? Police told me the first trial date is this tuesday.

Pregnant Homeschool Mom Assaulted by Sheriff as CPS Kidnaps Her Kids in Kentucky
data blog.pageTitle
KY Cops Take 10 Kids From Free-Range Family Brutalize Pregnant Mother - Police State Daily
BREAKING Police Seize 10 Children From Homeschool Family Because They re Off-Grid Off The Grid News

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This story smells.....also this story takes place in a Red (rural) area of a Red state.

You can call the police department. I put the number in the OP. You will discover it is true.

Tell you what...give us a news link...not a self-serving "send us money" link.

A news link from CNN or MSNBC? Police told me the first trial date is this tuesday.

Pregnant Homeschool Mom Assaulted by Sheriff as CPS Kidnaps Her Kids in Kentucky
data blog.pageTitle
KY Cops Take 10 Kids From Free-Range Family Brutalize Pregnant Mother - Police State Daily
BREAKING Police Seize 10 Children From Homeschool Family Because They re Off-Grid Off The Grid News

This is disturbing and once the state gets involved it can quickly become a nightmare

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

When you hate government enough to throw the wellbeing of children under the bus, you have descended to a whole new level of depravity.

I see no problem with people homeschooling, living off the grid...my problem is with this story. I believe it's nothing but a money making scheme.

Call the police department. The number is there.

 

[Yarddog]

Progs think children should belong to society. Newsflash, progs, they don't

When you hate government enough to throw the wellbeing of children under the bus, you have descended to a whole new level of depravity.

I see no problem with people homeschooling, living off the grid...my problem is with this story. I believe it's nothing but a money making scheme.

It could be a scam I suppose, have to look at it close . but it could also be an overreach as well

 

[NYcarbineer]

Breckinridge County Kentucky is run by Progressives?

I'm guessing 'No'.