Do your children (and the decisions in their medical care) belong to you?

Your child is in the hospital.

You cannot take them home. The state has taken custody.

The treatment they are receiving is threatening their well-being.

Justina Pelletier has been taken from her parents and is in custody of the State of Massachusetts. (Image source: Facebook)

Justina Pelletier has been taken from her parents and is in custody of the State of Massachusetts. (Image source: Facebook)

This is the situation faced by the Pelletier family. Their saga began in February 2013, when the Pelletiers brought their daughter Justina into the emergency room at Children’s Hospital in Boston to treat her after a severe flu left her weak and refusing to eat.

Justina had been previously diagnosed with mitochondrial disease and had been receiving treatment for that at Tufts Medical Center. Her sister shares the same genetic condition.

After three days in the hospital, a medical team at Children’s Hospital said they disagreed with the diagnosis, asserting her condition is psychosomatic. The Pelletiers attempted to take their daughter back to Tufts with doctors they trusted. Children’s Hospital contacted DCF and reported that they suspected child abuse. The state took custody of Justina and began their preferred method of therapy in the psych ward of the hospital.

For the past year, The family has only had contact with Justina through one-hour supervised visits per week. For a while, before a Massachusetts judge placed a gag order on the case, Justina was “sneaking notes” to her parents, explaining that she was in constant pain, and asking them to get her out of the hospital.

In desperation, Lou Pelletier has been speaking to the press in defiance of the gag order, and DCF has filed contempt of court charges in response.

This family’s rights have been stripped from them, but you can help.

You can:

Check out the Facebook page looking for a miracle for Justine.

Sign this petition to the White house to Order the Justice Department to investigate civil rights violations in the Justina Pelletier case.

Donate to the effort to free Justine at


The bottom line in this case is that parents should be the final authority in the medical care of their children. We are the only protectors of our liberties. We have to stand because Justine represents all our children.

Posted in Justine Pelletier, liberty, medical care, principles, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

“…our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

Today, I would like to remind each of us of the way this country secured its Independence. We should look often at these words, and never forget what it means to be free.


The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America


In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops
among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

WE, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Posted in Declaration of Independence, Founding Fathers, liberty | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court Disregards the Essence of the 4th Amendment


On June 3rd, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that police officers can make searches without suspicion of an arrested person and take DNA samples as a normal arrest procedure for serious crimes. I find myself alarmed by this decision for the potential of abuse and future losses of freedoms.

I am joined in my concern by Justice Scalia and the other three dissenting Justices, namely Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. In Scalia’s dissent, he clearly lays out the problems in the holding. He rightly says that, “The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous.”

The trouble with the high court’s holding is that it does not match the facts in the case before them. The decision asks the reader to accept that DNA was needed to identify the respondent. This is not true. They had to send the DNA sample taken from King to the lab with notations of the identity affixed. They used the sample not for purposes of identification, but for crime-solving. Interestingly, the Maryland Public Safety code declares illegal the use of the DNA collection for uses other than those proscribed by statute.

In this case, the Supreme Court is off the rails. The governmental interest should be more than compelling to weigh heavier against the intrusion into the body of the arrested. I could see there being a weighty interest if the accused could not be identified by fingerprints or other means. We should not normalize the intrusion by the government into citizens’ bodies. Justice Scalia suggests that serious crimes will not be the boundary for the collection of DNA at arrest:

When there comes before us the taking of DNA from an arrestee for a traffic violation, the Court will predictably (and quite rightly) say, “We can find no significant difference between this case and King.” Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever
arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.

There should be an extreme test of a compelling government interest before any such search is performed. I further read the 4th Amendment to always require a warrant and would base the granting of such on that compelling interest. The Court would disagree with me, based on their citation of precedent that allowed searches based on circumstance. They are wrong because as said Scalia, “Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.”

Here is the bottom line: Government is eager to spread its influence, and we have to hold the line at the Constitution and vigorously stand for the principles of liberty and self-governance. If we relinquish this task to a majority of five Supreme Court Justices, we will lose the freedoms we cherish.


What do you think? Please comment below and share this post with your friends!

Posted in 4th Amendment, liberty, principles, United States Supreme Court, US Constitution | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment