Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
High Risk Categories
Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.
I hear they have added gun owners to this as well. WTF people, libs you ok with this. PLUS US TAX PAYERS are paying almost 225M on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,
“This is not a“voluntary”program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.
Until they come for you , I take it you will be ok with it .. Is your nose so brown it is so far up Obama's ass ..I take it that yours is first on the list.
I do not disagree. There is a double standard. I just find it amazing that you find it amazing. It is to be expected. Liberalism is a mental disorder.What I find amazing here is the double standard. It's like the same Left that cannot find anything right about the Patriot Act, can't find anything wrong with this. Astounding.
Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the ‘Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program’ and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for American’s most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,
This is not avoluntaryprogram.
the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary
Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for Americans most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.
Well I suppose if all you are concerned with is INTENTIONS and not consequences, results or possible alternative approaches that don't stomp on the rights of the citizenry then you'd have a point. Of course one wonders how you're going to feel about "intentions" when the federal government decides that an egregious violation of your rights justifies their good intentions.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" -- Proverb
Forced Home Inspections Authorized under ObamacareHigh Risk Categories
Families where mom is not yet 21.
Families where someone is a tobacco user.
Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.
Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.I hear they have added gun owners to this as well. WTF people, libs you ok with this. PLUS US TAX PAYERS are paying almost 225M on this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to “help parents and children.” Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to “enhance program sustainability.”
Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states,
“This is not a“voluntary”program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to “intervention” in “school readiness” and “social-emotional developmental indicators.” A farm family may be subject to “intervention” in order to “prevent child injuries.” The sky is the limit.
Why would you not want high risk families and individuals to be checked on? It only applies to those eligible and enrolled in the ‘Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program’ and are in the high risk category. If you are not eligible and enrolled, nor in the high risk category, it doesn't apply to you. The intention of the program is to improve outcomes for American’s most vulnerable children and families, not to invade one's privacy, or infringe on someone's rights.
Well I suppose if all you are concerned with is INTENTIONS and not consequences, results or possible alternative approaches that don't stomp on the rights of the citizenry then you'd have a point. Of course one wonders how you're going to feel about "intentions" when the federal government decides that an egregious violation of your rights justifies their good intentions.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" -- Proverb
That is a rather cynical, if not paranoid way to look at it. States already have some of this in place, particularly with regard to abusive situations in families. I highly recommend that people read the details of these programs because if you do, I think you will find no boogeymen lurking in them. And if you really understood how badly needed this is, you might see it in a different light. Child abuse/child neglect is rampant in this country, particularly in low income neighborhoods. The birthrate in this country is abysmal; as well, the infant mortality rate is a scandal for a so-called world-leading industrialized nation. Our children are our future, and so if we don't take care of them now, how are they going to take care of our country's future? And with all due respect, you talk about rights, I say no one has a right to mistreat, neglect, or abuse a child for any reason. The government has an obligation and a mandate to protect our children. And if that means checking in on those at highest risk, at a minimum, that's what should be done.
Well I suppose if all you are concerned with is INTENTIONS and not consequences, results or possible alternative approaches that don't stomp on the rights of the citizenry then you'd have a point. Of course one wonders how you're going to feel about "intentions" when the federal government decides that an egregious violation of your rights justifies their good intentions.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" -- Proverb
That is a rather cynical, if not paranoid way to look at it. States already have some of this in place, particularly with regard to abusive situations in families. I highly recommend that people read the details of these programs because if you do, I think you will find no boogeymen lurking in them. And if you really understood how badly needed this is, you might see it in a different light. Child abuse/child neglect is rampant in this country, particularly in low income neighborhoods. The birthrate in this country is abysmal; as well, the infant mortality rate is a scandal for a so-called world-leading industrialized nation. Our children are our future, and so if we don't take care of them now, how are they going to take care of our country's future? And with all due respect, you talk about rights, I say no one has a right to mistreat, neglect, or abuse a child for any reason. The government has an obligation and a mandate to protect our children. And if that means checking in on those at highest risk, at a minimum, that's what should be done.
Consider that it's only cynical if one completely ignores human history, the erosion of individual liberty by the state has been and still is carried out principally by the means of incremental degradation (precedent establishing means) using the same "good intentions" rational that you're putting forward. I can point to the recent revelations of NSA intrusions of the privacy of the citizenry as another glowing example of the same sort of reasoning that your argument relies upon to whit; The NSA is justified in intruding into the personal communications of the law abiding citizenry because it's "good intention" is to protect the citizenry from "terrorists", now how anyone can conclude that spying on law abiding citizenry is a valid mechanism for protecting them from miscreants is beyond me but it's the rational being put forward in the NSA case and it's the rational that you are attempting to put forward now.
One also must consider that such methods start with the premise that the exception is the rule because no mechanism exists to determine probable cause on a case by case basis in either case. Nor does the rational hold up from a practicality standpoint since it attempts to address the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the root cause.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoeller
Let's start with the right to be secure in ones person and property, that's not only a natural right it's also a right that is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution.That is a rather cynical, if not paranoid way to look at it. States already have some of this in place, particularly with regard to abusive situations in families. I highly recommend that people read the details of these programs because if you do, I think you will find no boogeymen lurking in them. And if you really understood how badly needed this is, you might see it in a different light. Child abuse/child neglect is rampant in this country, particularly in low income neighborhoods. The birthrate in this country is abysmal; as well, the infant mortality rate is a scandal for a so-called world-leading industrialized nation. Our children are our future, and so if we don't take care of them now, how are they going to take care of our country's future? And with all due respect, you talk about rights, I say no one has a right to mistreat, neglect, or abuse a child for any reason. The government has an obligation and a mandate to protect our children. And if that means checking in on those at highest risk, at a minimum, that's what should be done.
Consider that it's only cynical if one completely ignores human history, the erosion of individual liberty by the state has been and still is carried out principally by the means of incremental degradation (precedent establishing means) using the same "good intentions" rational that you're putting forward. I can point to the recent revelations of NSA intrusions of the privacy of the citizenry as another glowing example of the same sort of reasoning that your argument relies upon to whit; The NSA is justified in intruding into the personal communications of the law abiding citizenry because it's "good intention" is to protect the citizenry from "terrorists", now how anyone can conclude that spying on law abiding citizenry is a valid mechanism for protecting them from miscreants is beyond me but it's the rational being put forward in the NSA case and it's the rational that you are attempting to put forward now.
One also must consider that such methods start with the premise that the exception is the rule because no mechanism exists to determine probable cause on a case by case basis in either case. Nor does the rational hold up from a practicality standpoint since it attempts to address the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the root cause.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoeller
What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially
erode?
Nobody is contending that anyone possesses the right to abuse children, what is in question is the right to privacy sans the issuance of a warrant by a court with proper jurisdiction. As far as voluntarily entering a program one would question the morality of a state that victimizes select groups of the citizenry by withholding what they themselves deem as beneficial necessary services on condition that said person signs away their own rights.You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?
That is a rather cynical, if not paranoid way to look at it. States already have some of this in place, particularly with regard to abusive situations in families. I highly recommend that people read the details of these programs because if you do, I think you will find no boogeymen lurking in them. And if you really understood how badly needed this is, you might see it in a different light. Child abuse/child neglect is rampant in this country, particularly in low income neighborhoods. The birthrate in this country is abysmal; as well, the infant mortality rate is a scandal for a so-called world-leading industrialized nation. Our children are our future, and so if we don't take care of them now, how are they going to take care of our country's future? And with all due respect, you talk about rights, I say no one has a right to mistreat, neglect, or abuse a child for any reason. The government has an obligation and a mandate to protect our children. And if that means checking in on those at highest risk, at a minimum, that's what should be done.
Consider that it's only cynical if one completely ignores human history, the erosion of individual liberty by the state has been and still is carried out principally by the means of incremental degradation (precedent establishing means) using the same "good intentions" rational that you're putting forward. I can point to the recent revelations of NSA intrusions of the privacy of the citizenry as another glowing example of the same sort of reasoning that your argument relies upon to whit; The NSA is justified in intruding into the personal communications of the law abiding citizenry because it's "good intention" is to protect the citizenry from "terrorists", now how anyone can conclude that spying on law abiding citizenry is a valid mechanism for protecting them from miscreants is beyond me but it's the rational being put forward in the NSA case and it's the rational that you are attempting to put forward now.
One also must consider that such methods start with the premise that the exception is the rule because no mechanism exists to determine probable cause on a case by case basis in either case. Nor does the rational hold up from a practicality standpoint since it attempts to address the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the root cause.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoeller
What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially erode? You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?
Let's start with the right to be secure in ones person and property, that's not only a natural right it's also a right that is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution.Consider that it's only cynical if one completely ignores human history, the erosion of individual liberty by the state has been and still is carried out principally by the means of incremental degradation (precedent establishing means) using the same "good intentions" rational that you're putting forward. I can point to the recent revelations of NSA intrusions of the privacy of the citizenry as another glowing example of the same sort of reasoning that your argument relies upon to whit; The NSA is justified in intruding into the personal communications of the law abiding citizenry because it's "good intention" is to protect the citizenry from "terrorists", now how anyone can conclude that spying on law abiding citizenry is a valid mechanism for protecting them from miscreants is beyond me but it's the rational being put forward in the NSA case and it's the rational that you are attempting to put forward now.
One also must consider that such methods start with the premise that the exception is the rule because no mechanism exists to determine probable cause on a case by case basis in either case. Nor does the rational hold up from a practicality standpoint since it attempts to address the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the root cause.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoeller
What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially
erode?
orogenicman said:You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?
nightfox said:Nobody is contending that anyone possesses the right to abuse children, what is in question is the right to privacy sans the issuance of a warrant by a court with proper jurisdiction. As far as voluntarily entering a program one would question the morality of a state that victimizes select groups of the citizenry by withholding what they themselves deem as beneficial necessary services on condition that said person signs away their own rights.
Consider that it's only cynical if one completely ignores human history, the erosion of individual liberty by the state has been and still is carried out principally by the means of incremental degradation (precedent establishing means) using the same "good intentions" rational that you're putting forward. I can point to the recent revelations of NSA intrusions of the privacy of the citizenry as another glowing example of the same sort of reasoning that your argument relies upon to whit; The NSA is justified in intruding into the personal communications of the law abiding citizenry because it's "good intention" is to protect the citizenry from "terrorists", now how anyone can conclude that spying on law abiding citizenry is a valid mechanism for protecting them from miscreants is beyond me but it's the rational being put forward in the NSA case and it's the rational that you are attempting to put forward now.
One also must consider that such methods start with the premise that the exception is the rule because no mechanism exists to determine probable cause on a case by case basis in either case. Nor does the rational hold up from a practicality standpoint since it attempts to address the symptoms of problems instead of addressing the root cause.
"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." -- Martin Niemoeller
What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially erode? You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?
They will be going into SMOKERS homes and legal gun owners . Last I checked both of these things are legal even though many on the left would like both to be illegal.. If the smoker is smoking outside what right does ANYONE without a warrant be allowed in my home unless I invite them. Hmm there is a history of Obama was a smoker are they going to snoop around his housing quarters too. Oh yeah, nothing applies to him and his family
What liberties do you believe you have that these programs could potentially erode? You don't have a right to emotionally or physically abuse your child. You don't have a right to withhold medical care from your child. You don't have a right to withhold food and water from your child. You don't have a right to raise your child in an unhealthy environment. So again, what liberties do you suppose you would be denied by VOLUNTARILY ENTERING THESE PROGRAMS?
They will be going into SMOKERS homes and legal gun owners . Last I checked both of these things are legal even though many on the left would like both to be illegal.. If the smoker is smoking outside what right does ANYONE without a warrant be allowed in my home unless I invite them. Hmm there is a history of Obama was a smoker are they going to snoop around his housing quarters too. Oh yeah, nothing applies to him and his family
Uh-huh and the problem with leaving up it the communities that set those standards for themselves to enforce said standards is what ? We're not talking about the self-determination of individual communities here we're talking about shoving a set of arbitrary standards down the throat of EVERY community using methods which are in direct contradiction to natural rights, constitutional protections and generally accepted morality.It is illegal in some communities to smoke around pregnant women, babies, and small children. It is also medically very unsound.
