August 15th, 2013


Ben Swann

This article comes from

“Clearly, any family may be visited by federally paid agents for almost any reason.”

According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted.

The Health and Human Services’ website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the “high-risk” categories below:

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.

There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be “eligible.”

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.

Although the Obama administration would claim the provision applies only to Medicaid families, the new statute, by its own definition, has no such limitation. Intervention may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

Read more here.

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.


  1. 1
    Mike Says:


  2. 2
    Big Al Says:

    @Mike-Keep saying it till you’re blue in the face “DON’T FUND OBAMACARE.COM” . Everybody all together now, in one loud voice!!!

  3. 3
    Joe Berry Says:

    I treat anyone forcing their way in my home as a criminal

  4. 4
    Mike Says:

    O.K. Big Al, DON’T FUND OBAMA CARE.COM Get your wife, your kids, your parents, your in-laws and even your dogs and cats. It is time to just say NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

  5. 5
    Cal Says:

    AS if this is legal in the USA. It is NOT lawful, nor is the “Patriot Act:, NDAA, warrantless anything, TSA at airports or anywhere else.

    So OK, when does “Support and Defend the US Constitution” kick in? We will support arrests and prosecutions of them all!! Yes, I do understand that like many other cirminals they will fight arrests – so you let them get by with their criminal behavior? So LEO”s walk away and look for innocents who they can bully — Hmmm , they have been doing that haven;’t they?


  6. 6
    Cal Says:

    Completely fake, but obviously you people don’t care about facts.

  7. 7
    Y'all are a bunch of chumps ... Says:

    It’s never a good idea to confront BS with more BS …

    [Editorial Note to "Y'all are a bunch of chumps"

    In 1991 Blair Adams published a book entitled: WHO OWNS THE CHILDREN? (subtitled "Public Compulsion, Private Responsibility, and the Dilemma of Ultimate Authority," Waco, Texas: Truth Forum, 1991, Fifth edition). The book inspired Carl Watner, co-founder of the Voluntaryist movement in America back in the 1980s (the other two co-founders were Wendy McElroy and G.H. Smith), to write the story of a family in Utah who refused to comply with public school mandates, a decision which ended with law enforcement shooting the father to death on his own farm with the children present.

    The story Watner wrote shows the ugly side of the flowery Govlish terminology with which oppression and tyranny always seek to seduce an ignorant society. You, Sir, render an impression to me of a man who has submitted to Govlish twists, spin, and blatant propaganda. I therefore shall take you to task by introducing you to Carl Watner’s article, “Who Controls The Children”. But lest thee stray enroute to the article, here are some key points, beginning with a paragraph from the preface in Blair Adams’ book.

    Carl Watner speaking:

    Penning a very broad-ranging fundamentalist Christian attack on State compulsion, the author (Brian Adams) examines some of the court cases and legal precedents that shed light on this important question. In his "Preface" he writes:

    [A]ccording to the courts of this land, … “A child is primarily” not his parents’ offspring but “a ward of the [S]tate”; … parents hold relationship he owes allegiance to the government”; … parents serve as a mere “guardianship” which “the government places [the child] under”; … parental authority must be “at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the [S]tate”; … “the natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of… his child are subordinate to the power of the [S]tate”;… in deciding whether parent or State will control a child’s education, the child’s academic progress under the parents – even as measured by State-approved tests – has been termed by State prosecutors as “irrelevant and immaterial”; and finally … such legal principles and policies form the basis of all this nation’s compulsory education laws. (pp. xix-xx)

    Now let us examine the actual court cases and contexts in which these judicial statements were made.

    Mercein v. People Ex Rel Barry, 25 Wendell 64, December 1840

    This case involved a custody dispute in New York state. Lawyers for Mr. Barry, the father, argued that the father’s right to the custody of his minor child was paramount to that of Mercein (his father-in-law) or even Mercein’s daughter (the child’s mother). The court stressed that, The interest of the infant is deemed paramount to the claim of both parents,” and that the welfare of the infant must be recognized ahead of the rights of the parents. The chancellor then went on to explain how parental authority is dependent on the State: By the law of nature, the father has no paramount right to the custody of his child. By that law the wife and child are equal to the husband and father; but inferior and subject to their sovereign. The head of a family, in his character as husband and father, has no authority over his wife and children; but in his character of sovereign he has. On the establishment of civil societies, the power of the chief of a family as sovereign, passes to the chief or government of the nation. And the chief or magistrate of the nation not possessing the requisite knowledge necessary to a judicious discharge of the duties of guardianship and education of children, such portion of the sovereign power as he relates to the discharge of these duties, is transferred to the parents, subject to such restrictions and limitations as the sovereign power of the nation think proper to prescribe. There is no parental authority independent of the supreme power of the state . But the former is derived altogether from the latter. … (Emphasis added.)

    It seems then, that by the law of nature, the father has no paramount inalienable right to the custody of his child. … The moment the child is born, it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. (Emphasis added.)

    State v. Bailey, 157 Ind. 324, October 29, 1901

    Sheridan Bailey had been convicted for violating the compulsory education law of Indiana which went into effect March 8, 1897. One of the grounds upon which Bailey challenged the state was that “it invaded the natural right of a man to govern and control his own children.” The court responded with the following words:

    The natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of his infant child are subordinate to the power of the state, and may be restricted and regulated by municipal laws. (Emphasis added.) One of the most important natural duties of the parent is his obligation to educate his child, and this duty he owes not to the child only, but to the commonwealth. If he neglects to perform it or willfully refuses to do so, he may be coerced by law to execute such civil obligation.

    Viemeister v. White, President of Board of Education , 179 N.Y. 235, October 18, 1904

    This case involved a compulsory immunization regulation of the Queens County Board of Education mandating that all pupils and teachers be vaccinated, or otherwise be denied admittance to school. The parents sued the Board of Education, demanding that their son be re-admitted to public school, even though he had not received the required shots. The parents believed that smallpox vaccinations “did not tend to prevent smallpox,” “tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm with good.” The court observed: “When the sole object and general tendency of legislation is to promote the public health, there is no invasion of the Constitution, even if the enforcement of the law interferes to some extent with liberty or property.” The court also noted that belief in the efficacy of vaccination programs was widespread both in the United States and other countries.

    The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the Legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action: for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not . (Emphasis added.)

    In effect, the court said that if it is a common belief that killing red headed people is an effective way to ward off economic depressions, and the legislature passes a law authorizing the killing of all red heads for this purpose, then killing of red headed people is no longer murder but a legislatively sanctioned activity for the general welfare of the society. Such reasoning is the result of belief in majority rule, and the negation of individual rights.

    State v. Shorey, 48 Or. 396, September 11, 1906

    John Shorey was convicted of violating Oregon’s child labor law which prohibited “the employment of a child under 16 years of age for a longer period than 10 hours in any one day”. On appeal the Oregon Supreme Court explained that laws regulating the employment of adults had a different constitutional basis than the child labor law. Since the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution protected “life or liberty,” adult employment laws were only valid if they were reasonably necessary to “protect the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.”

    But laws regulating the right of minors to contract do not come within this principle. … They [minors] are wards of the state and subject to its control. As to them the state stands in the position of parens patriae and may exercise unlimited supervision and control over their contracts, occupation, and conduct, and the liberty and right of those who assume to deal with them. This is a power which inheres in the government for its own preservation and for the protection of life, person, health, and moral of its future citizens . (Emphasis added.) … [The court then goes on to cite the author of a legal textbook] ‘Minors are wards of the nation, and even the control of them by parents is subject to the unlimited supervisory control of the state.’ Consequently, the court affirmed that Oregon’s child labor law was “a valid exercise of legislative power.

    Allison et al. v. Bryan, 21 Oklahoma 557, June 25, 1908

    This case adjudicated a custody dispute over Kenner Allison, Jr., the illegitimate child of Anna Bryan and Kenner Allison, Sr. By the early common law, fathers usually asserted their control over any and all of their children. This right was gradually eroded by statutory law and court decisions during the 19th Century. Thus, by 1908, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that fathers were not entitled to the services of their children.

    A child is primarily a ward of the state . The sovereign has the inherent power to legislate for its welfare, and to place it with either parent at will, or take it from both parents and to place it elsewhere. This is true not only of illegitimate children, but is also true of legitimate children. The rights of the parent in his child are just such rights as the law gives him; no more, no less. His duties toward his child are just such as the law places upon him…. [The Court then cites the case of Mercein v. People (see above) and concludes its general discussion of children, parents, and the state by referring to Lewis Hochheimer's book, A TREATISE ON THE LAW RELATING TO THE CUSTODY OF INFANTS (1887).] “It may be considered as the settled doctrine in American courts that all power and authority over infants are a mere delegated function, entrusted by the sovereign state to the individual parent or guardian, revocable by the state through its tribunals, and to be at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the state.” (Emphasis added.)….

    Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 US 158, January 31, 1944

    This case originated in a clash between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the State of Massachusetts. The legislature had passed a law which prohibited children from selling magazines. It was designed to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from having their children distribute the “Watchtower” publication. Sarah Prince had been convicted of violating Massachusetts’ child labor laws, and she appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis that her religious freedoms, under the First Amendment, had been violated by the State. The Supreme Court upholding her conviction, set forth part of its reasoning in the following comments:

    Previously in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, … [see reference to this case in my article "Bad or Worse!", THE VOLUNTARYIST, October 1992] this Court had sustained the parent’s authority to provide religious with secular schooling, and the child’s right to receive it, as against the state’s requirement of attendance at public schools. … It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
    But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither rights guard the general interest in youth’s well being, the state as parents patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor, and in many other ways. … [T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare, and this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction.
    (Emphasis added.)…

    The state’s authority over children’s activities is broader than over like actions of adults. This is peculiarly true of public activities and in matters of employment. A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that implies. [What should they be - obedient, tax-paying slaves and conscripts?] It [the state] may secure this against impending restraints and dangers, within a broad range of selection.

    Ex part Walters, 221 P.2d 659, Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, June 28, 1950

    This case extensively quotes Ex parte Powell, one of the earlier Oklahoma citations found above. It prefaces these quotes by remarking that, “Thus it will be found that this court has for some forty years been committed to the thesis that the state has a paramount interest in the child. And why should this not be? Is it not for the common good? Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher, hundreds of years prior to the modern dictators who for selfish, sinister ends, though proclaimed for the common good, have made such effective use of the idea, said, ‘All who have meditated on the act of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth’.”
    Since you like to go verify things, please by all means do go hunt down those court cases and come back here and tell me they do not exist, or that they were mis-quoted, okay? Do that for me please. But if you can accept what the damned courts have said since the beginning of this Republic, as recalled above in Watner’s article, then you have a danged good chance of coming to realize that the phraseology and connotative elements in the Snopes rebuttal are easily seen through, so that when one reads further down the Snopes page one finds this sort of language:

    No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake “forced home inspections.” What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA’s creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which “facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs” by awarding development grants to states that “currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts.”

    The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention. (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.)

    >>

    Anything coming from the Federal government and purporting to “assist States” has strings attached, as you well know.
    Had enough? Get my drift? Which court ruling listed above would you call “BS”? A government which thinks it owns your or my kids will act predictably, no matter how benignly it composes the phraseology of its masked power. So I am using your bland comment as a learning moment for countless readers here. Thank you for that.

    Tyranny is always sold to a population of citizens, in any country, with flowery-sounding Govlish-styled language abuse. Your perception is infected with Govlish memes. Your perception is founded in collectivism and socialist-styled corporate fascism. Whether Obamacare will or will not “target” families for invasive home inspections of familial rapport and interaction, the very essence of “to govern” is the root of “government”, and once a satiate people allow power to become concentrated into a few hands, as modern-era Administrations all have strove to increase, (two Bushes on the “R” side and a Clinton and an Obama on the “D” side), we shall see usurpation by the Executive of illicit authority not granted in the system of three co-equal branches of government created by our nation’s founders in the U.S. Constitution. A President cannot make law without usurping the Constitutional authority of the Congress. But even though we all can see the acquiescence of the Congress to Executive egoism in the past four consecutive Presidencies, the fact that the error continues to sit in power by no means justifies it. When the powers that be tell you that the state is going to ensure that you raise your children in accordance with governmental mandates or suffer the punishments of government’s enforcement arms, and then tells you also what you will and will not teach your children and what will and will not be taught in the public schools, the usurpation of the human soul has been achieved by the collectivist state (government). This nation’s founders created a work-order for the General government in Article I, Section 8. And the Tenth Amendment reminds us that if it’s not granted as a power to the General government in Article I, Section 8, then it is reserved to the States or to the people. Implied is that the General government has only limited and defined authority and power, to serve the States’ mutual needs and purposes. The entire “Obamacare” is a pile of statist crap all wrapped up in false promises which even now the American people are beginning to see through.

    Regarding “Snopes”, I regard that site as similar to other CIA/DIA/DOJ special warfare proprietaries, such as Google and Facebook. I’ve read into Special Warfare, Irregular Warfare, Psychological Operations, and “Operations Other Than War”(OOTW).

    So I’m calling “BS” on your calling us “BS”. Talk to me.

    Elias Alias, editor]

Leave a Reply

© 2012 | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148