Progressives Destroy Family of 12

[Pogo]

Actually we're talking quite a bit colder in the winter. The neighbor in the TV story described them sleeping in their van at "thirty below zero" which is a stretch, but thirty below freezing is not. We get that here in Carolina. I'm not that far away from them.

Kentucky isn't exactly "deep south". Where they are is basically east of Cincinnati.

So single digit temps sometimes. Maybe they ran out of wood? ~shrug~

This would be prime example, of "why do you know better then them." Why does it matter that they were sleeping in their van exactly? Is it a crime to sleep in your van?

I know people live in motorhomes all year long up here - my husband repairs their shit - and it /does/ get to 50 below zero. Is that a crime too?

Nobody said it's a "crime". It's the weather. You can acknowledge the weather and its effects, and provide for your family -- or you can say "fuck it" and go beg on Facebook with some fantasy comic book about "homeschooling".

Burning wood can be a great help when it's single digits, or anywhere below freezing. That's what I do. But I have something they don't -- walls. And I seal off places where that heat might escape. There's no WAY I would plop out ten children and force them to live without walls because I couldn't be bothered to take my responsibility to work for their survival. No way.

So they begged for a wood stove -- even though they have no walls -- and when that failed they put twelve people in a van. And then they started a cooking fore with gasoline (duh) and got burned. No water-- they troll neighbors for that... no sewage -- kids living in their own shit... and a head of household who apparently makes his only living by waving a gun at his neighbors. I'd say there's a crime in there somewhere.

 

[Pogo]

30 below zero...in Eastern KY???
Uh...no.
I live about 75 miles NORTH of there and it rarely gets below 0 here. By rare, I mean maybe a few nights a year, and many winters it doesn't even get down to the single digits.
In that area there is snow on the ground maybe 10-15 days a YEAR. Like here, it usually melts the very next day. Usually. This year it sure didn't, but this year was certainly unusual.

Yeah that would be some kind of record. Thirty below freezing (which would be 2) would be more common. Cold enough to warrant walls though.

North or south of there isn't to be overemphasized -- I live south of there and I've seen ten, fifteen below zero, plus we get monster winds in the winter. Winds can greatly increase the effects of the cold and sap the heat you do have. Especially when you have no walls.

 

[Pogo]

That isn't the deal here though. I live without some of those conveniences too but the story isn't about homesteading, home schooling (an angle which seems now to have been abandoned) or some noble "living off the grid". That's all spin that these con artists tried to put on it. The sheriff that went out there actually said the ideas of "off the grid" and homeschooling were "kinda cool".

From what we can gather the story's about kids living in shit (literal shit, not figurative), broken glass, and without shelter, in dangerous conditions (a hatchet accident and burning from starting a fire with gasoline have been reported) by a family with a long history of abuse and arrests for it -- as well as mooching/begging/stealing from neighbors and now this gun threat.

Seems to me the local government is acting not to "protect" the Shady Bunch, but to protect their neighbors (and their kids) FROM them.

I read this:

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.

Which is an argument about /who/ decides what is /necessary/ for a family. So my posting was a vein in that thread.

I understand that, but that's the OP and his premise has never been honest from the start. There's no evidence of "Progressives", no evidence of a "homeschooling" issue, no evidence of "destroying a family", and until yesterday evening, no evidence that this story happened at all since the info came ENTIRELY from the family's propaganda Nosebook page.

When you have kids running around in broken glass and feces it's arguably a public health issue. If they kept to themselves and actually were the self-sufficient Little House on the Prairie per their fantasy-Facebook world, that would be their problem. But they're not ---- since they're unwilling to support themselves they troll around for water from neighbors and municipal sources. Water supply is very vulnerable to disease transmission. There's a public health concern right there.

Let alone the gun threats, which was what spurred this action, and which apparently has a history.

 

[EverCurious]

Nobody said it's a "crime". It's the weather. You can acknowledge the weather and its effects, and provide for your family -- or you can say "fuck it" and go beg on Facebook with some fantasy comic book about "homeschooling".

Burning wood can be a great help when it's single digits, or anywhere below freezing. That's what I do. But I have something they don't -- walls. And I seal off places where that heat might escape. There's no WAY I would plop out ten children and force them to live without walls because I couldn't be bothered to take my responsibility to work for their survival. No way.

So they begged for a wood stove -- even though they have no walls -- and when that failed they put twelve people in a van. And then they started a cooking fore with gasoline (duh) and got burned. No water-- they troll neighbors for that... no sewage -- kids living in their own shit... and a head of household who apparently makes his only living by waving a gun at his neighbors. I'd say there's a crime in there somewhere.

Okay so you're arguing that the inside of a heated vehicle is some how not /acceptable/ to keep warm in. /I/ disagree with you, they decided it was too cold and went to their 'alternate' shelter - aka their van - to stay warm. I don't see a problem the government needs to get involved in "stopping" here, sorry.

As for the rest, I already said they've got some issues.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Bingo. Do a search for any actual news outlet, anywhere, reporting this. I did -- nothing.

I'll be in Kentucky next week, maybe I can go check it out. You know, in the real world.

Alex Jones
Medicalkidnap.com... (medical kidnap??)
Policestatedaily...
Offthegridnews...

Gullible's Travels.

I knew this would happen, you know. People looking for new ways to bilk money saw what happened when that pizza parlor in Indiana started crying about how mean the Left and the Gays were to them and BAM! They got thousands of dollars in a few days (well, SOMEONE got thousands of dollars). It's the new scam....cry that the Police State or the Liberals (or both) are out to get you and set up a GoFundMe account.

If the left would behave themselves, then no one would be getting thousands of dollars to defend themselves from the idiot left, so who are the real idiots in it all ? I'd say the left is or the progressives or whatever they are calling themselves these days. This was in response to you bringing up the pizza parlor.

 

[EverCurious]

I understand that, but that's the OP ad his premise has never been honest from the start. There's no evidence of "Progressives", no evidence of a "homeschooling" issue, no evidence of "destroying a family", and until yesterday evening, no evidence that this story happened at all since the info came ENTIRELY from the family's propaganda Nosebook page.

When you have kids running around in broken glass and feces it's arguably a public health issue. If they kept to themselves and actually were the self-sufficient Little House on the Prairie per their fantasy-Facebook world, that would be their problem. But they're not ---- since they're unwilling to support themselves they troll around for water from neighbors and municipal sources. Water supply is very vulnerable to disease transmission. There's a public health concern right there.

So basically your position is that no one is allowed to discuss anything that relates to the actual politics surrounding an issue brought up in an OP's article, only the article itself?

You better get to work son, you've got like 60,000 posts to go bitch in on here...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I tempted to show "ignored content," but I can ascertain that they are still trolling. If you put obiligum pogo and bod on ignore, the thread reads like a standard argument.

 

[Annie]

There's nothing wrong with a 'cabin' as you described, nor having kids visit it. There's nothing wrong about homesteading situations that mimicked living in the 1800's either. The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.

If one is living full time without plumbing, it makes sense to build an outhouse or some other way to keep the house free of urine and feces, no? Even in the 'olden days' chamber pots were used for those unable to leave the home, unless there were servants to remove the wastes in an expeditious manner.

Most people living 'off the grid' are providing for heat, water, etc., in alternative methods, not just not having them.

How Living Off the Grid Works - HowStuffWorks

Well as I said I was speaking "in general" not specifically /that/ family, though who's to say they /don't/ have an outhouse somewhere on their (what was it?) 37 acres that just doesn't happen to be in the pictures they post on facebook, and who's to say they are not planning to put in a well when they have the money to drill it, hell who's to say they /aren't/ drilling one? Either way, they /were/ providing water, how is getting it from the neighbor any different then welfare really?

Admittedly they have a problem now cause apparently the neighbor doesn't want to give them any anymore - and yea threatening to get a gun over it is a problem - but the point is they /were/ providing food and water... warmth... why would you say "warmth" instead of "shelter?" They /have/ a shelter... That aside though, warmth is relative honestly, I wear shorts outside when it's 40 degrees and that's fine for me, these folks are down in Kentucky. We're talking 30's at night in December and March and days/nights in Jan and Feb. It's not December, January, February, or March though, so it looks like its "warm" to me. I kind of got the feeling what you actually meant by "warmth" is "must have enclosed building" to which I slightly disagree is a "necessity" so important that the government would need to get involved and "stop."

Actually we're talking quite a bit colder in the winter. The neighbor in the TV story described them sleeping in their van at "thirty below zero" which is a stretch, but thirty below freezing is not. We get that here in Carolina. I'm not that far away from them.

Kentucky isn't exactly "deep south". Where they are is basically east of Cincinnati.

Including the mother giving birth and said newborn being there along with all the others.

 

[Annie]

\The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.

Link us direct evidence or gtfo, the same standard I was held to at the start of this thread.

Stop slandering. Notice that Pogo "agreed" with your post, because you're helping them slander this family without any proof.

I did, with the link to a local news source. I do not care that Pogo's opinon in this case agrees with mine, at least so far. We can have our differences on threads where we disagree. I try not to get nasty, though am fully capable of doing so. Those that have known me for a long time, would confirm.

 

[Pogo]

I understand that, but that's the OP ad his premise has never been honest from the start. There's no evidence of "Progressives", no evidence of a "homeschooling" issue, no evidence of "destroying a family", and until yesterday evening, no evidence that this story happened at all since the info came ENTIRELY from the family's propaganda Nosebook page.

When you have kids running around in broken glass and feces it's arguably a public health issue. If they kept to themselves and actually were the self-sufficient Little House on the Prairie per their fantasy-Facebook world, that would be their problem. But they're not ---- since they're unwilling to support themselves they troll around for water from neighbors and municipal sources. Water supply is very vulnerable to disease transmission. There's a public health concern right there.

So basically your position is that no one is allowed to discuss anything that relates to the actual politics surrounding an issue brought up in an OP's article, only the article itself?

You better get to work son, you've got like 60,000 posts to go bitch in on here...

Basically my position is that you can't go "RUN! Martians are invading the earth!!", get told "no they're not" and then proceed to ignore the negative and prattle on as if the original bullshit claim had any validity at all.

When you lose your keys, and then find them ---- do you continue looking for them?

 

[Pogo]

I tempted to show "ignored content," but I can ascertain that they are still trolling. If you put obiligum pogo and bod on ignore, the thread reads like a standard argument.

For any argument at all, if you block out everybody who disagrees or proves where you're wrong, you can have all the "valid" points you want. That's rhetorical wankitude, and you're welcome to it.

 

[Pogo]

\The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.

Link us direct evidence or gtfo, the same standard I was held to at the start of this thread.

Stop slandering. Notice that Pogo "agreed" with your post, because you're helping them slander this family without any proof.

I did, with the link to a local news source. I do not care that Pogo's opinon in this case agrees with mine, at least so far. We can have our differences on threads where we disagree. I try not to get nasty, though am fully capable of doing so. Those that have known me for a long time, would confirm.

I don't have a history with Annie, not even sure where she is on most issues. That wouldn't matter anyway; I have no hesitation putting positive feedback on points well made, regardless if that poster and I had a knock-down-drag-out somewhere else. When you're right you're right, and when you're wrong you're wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Okay so you're arguing that the inside of a heated vehicle is some how not /acceptable/ to keep warm in

A vehicle is not "heated" until and unless it's running. And it's certainly not well insulated. Although it beats living under a tarp with no walls.

As I said waaaaaay back, this family needs help. They're unwilling to do it themselves.

 

[EverCurious]

Okay so you're arguing that the inside of a heated vehicle is some how not /acceptable/ to keep warm in

A vehicle is not "heated" until and unless it's running. And it's certainly not well insulated. Although it beats living under a tarp with no walls.

As I said waaaaaay back, this family needs help. They're unwilling to do it themselves.

I've said in every post I've made there's questions about thsi family, your the one who decided to ignore that and go on the defensive (or maybe offensive) yelling at me like I think they're perfectly fine. You have reading comprehension issues, or maybe focus issues, but you do this kind of non-productive shit a lot, like pretty much every thread I've seen you posting in... Its kind of annoying to be frank, it would be nice if you could work on that so we could have at least some semblance of discussion - or are you just another one of the troll asshats on here? If so I'll just add you to the list that I don't bother responding to.


Anyway, who said the van wasn't running? And you said they had gasoline to start a fire... inside the van? Or two separate instances? I missed whatever article this was all mentioned in.

If they're begging for a woodstove shit's gotten serious and they are asking for help though. But instead of helping, people just said fuck off, and given no other choice they resorted to the van. I mean if people can excuse the poor for rioting and burning shit down, surely we can forgive a family with no house for sleeping in their van. They clearly need some help, but I'm not sure that /help/ needs to be in the form of taking their kids away.

 

[Pogo]

Okay so you're arguing that the inside of a heated vehicle is some how not /acceptable/ to keep warm in

A vehicle is not "heated" until and unless it's running. And it's certainly not well insulated. Although it beats living under a tarp with no walls.

As I said waaaaaay back, this family needs help. They're unwilling to do it themselves.

I've said in every post I've made there's questions about thsi family, your the one who decided to ignore that and go on the defensive (or maybe offensive) yelling at me like I think they're perfectly fine. You have reading comprehension issues, or maybe focus issues, but you do this kind of non-productive shit a lot, like pretty much every thread I've seen you posting in... Its kind of annoying to be frank, it would be nice if you could work on that so we could have at least some semblance of discussion - or are you just another one of the troll asshats on here? If so I'll just add you to the list that I don't bother responding to.

Dahell are you talking about? Do you have me mixed up with someone else?

Anyway, who said the van wasn't running? And you said they had gasoline to start a fire... inside the van? Or two separate instances? I missed whatever article this was all mentioned in.

I point out that the van has to be running in order to he "heated" -- which was your description. It's how cars work. If you're going to describe the van as "heated", then I'm going to point out by definition that means it has to be "running".

The gasoline fire is a separate issue. From here:

( ^^ one of a string of images posted on this page --- from the OP's own links... there are several more panels to that post but this is the one that mentions the gasoline)

If they're begging for a woodstove shit's gotten serious and they are asking for help though. But instead of helping, people just said fuck off, and given no other choice they resorted to the van. I mean if people can excuse the poor for rioting and burning shit down, surely we can forgive a family with no house for sleeping in their van. They clearly need some help, but I'm not sure that /help/ needs to be in the form of taking their kids away.

This has only just started to be covered by any legitimate journalism and the court hearings haven't yet begun but from all appearances CPS seems to be doing its job just as it would if a family of meth freaks were neglecting their children. Child abuse is taken seriously these days.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

\The problem comes as your opening states, is if the family isn't providing the necessary 'warmth, food, water, etc.', without resulting to force upon someone else.

Link us direct evidence or gtfo, the same standard I was held to at the start of this thread.

Stop slandering. Notice that Pogo "agreed" with your post, because you're helping them slander this family without any proof.

I did, with the link to a local news source. I do not care that Pogo's opinon in this case agrees with mine, at least so far. We can have our differences on threads where we disagree. I try not to get nasty, though am fully capable of doing so. Those that have known me for a long time, would confirm.

Show us the arrest/conviction record or trial, just like I had to.

An extraordinarily slanderous claim requires extraordinary proof.

 

[Pogo]

New article from an actual newspaper:

Couple raising TEN children in 'dirty' tents on a garbage dump, ban them from school and threaten concerned neighbors with guns. Their defense? It's all part of the trendy 'free range' parenting fad

....
On Wednesday, they were taken into custody and their mother arrested for refusing to cooperate with an investigation into their living standards.

Nicole, who is five months pregnant, spent a night in a cell and posted a photo on Facebook the next day showing a bruise on her arm, claiming she was hurt during her arrest. She faces magistrates on Monday. Joe, who has previously been charged with passing bad checks and driving without a license, was not arrested.

The couple has created a website slamming authorities for simply disagreeing with their approach to parenting.

However, the Cabinet for Health and Family Services report - posted on Facebook by Nicole Naugler - implies the children's liberty was a mere fraction of the reasons they were seized.
​

(that report image has been posted here previously)

More pics and a video at the link.

Edit - to paraphrase Joyce Kaufmann, "if original links won't work, proxy links will!"

​

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

I google searched this story. All of the links are from blogs and right wing 'news' agencies.
I'm going to hold off until the main stream media reports this.
If FNC had reported but not the other nets, I'd have to go along with the fact that the lefty MSM decided this was not news.
Not even FNC is picking up the story.
Hmmm.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Public schools are largely institutions of liberal indoctrination.....They are owned and operated by the extreme political left.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I google searched this story. All of the links are from blogs and right wing 'news' agencies.
I'm going to hold off until the main stream media reports this.

We spent the first 21 pages of this thread confirming the authenticity of the story, right down to the mug shots.

However, it appears the USMB Liberal Army will not hold their slanderous claims to the same magnitude of rigor.