Babies for Cash – How the State Abuses Infants by Destroying the Mother-Child Bond in CPS Abductions

 by Terri LaPoint
Health Impact News



A baby’s first year is crucial to a baby’s emotional and cognitive development. It is in the earliest months of life that the foundations for basic trust, security, and relationships are laid. The parent-child relationship is the environment in which that is designed to happen.

Yet the majority of children who enter foster care are taken within their first year of life, depriving them of critical bonding time and causing permanent trauma and damage to the babies’ ability to trust. More children in this age group are not returned home and are later adopted out than any other age group.

Human babies are born with an innate emotional and psychological need for their biological parents. When the child cannot or does not receive the love and acceptance of their own mother and father, he or she is left with a gaping hole deep inside that they may struggle the rest of their lives to fill even if they are loved, wanted, and cherished by a substitute parent.

The rationale behind the existence of Child Protective Services is that the state works for “the best interest of the child,” removing children from homes that the state decides are not good for the child.

Social workers and judges alike argue that they would rather be “on the safe side” and “err on the side of the child” by removing children to prevent the chance of them being harmed by their family. Countless social worker court reports of families whose stories we have covered contain references to the “possibility of future harm” without any evidence of actual harm having taken place.

Tracy Verzosa’s breastfeeding newborn was taken from her and her husband because the state had the other children. The baby was almost 2 years old before the children came home. Story here.

While parents battle social workers, doctors, attorneys, and judges for their children, the children are often in the care of someone else besides their parents. Aside from the fact that they are more likely to be abused in foster care than in their own home, there is real harm that comes to the children simply from being separated from their parents.

The harm of that separation is seldom considered by anyone within the Child Protective Services or foster care industry, evidenced by the fact that it is never mentioned in any of the thousands of pages of documents that we have examined for hundreds of families whose stories have been featured by Health Impact News.

Babies More Likely to be Taken, and Kept, by CPS than any Other Age Group

According to the 2017 AFCARS report (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, almost 1 in 5 children who entered foster care during 2016 (the latest date for which data is available) were less than 1 year old when they were taken from their parents.

The report cites the numbers and percentages of children taken at each age, from less than 1 year up to 17, as well as the numbers and percentages of children returned for each age up to age 20.

For every age besides babies under a year old, the percentage of children who exit foster care is within a percentage point of the number who enter the system. For example, 5% of the children who entered foster care in 2016 were 4 years old. The number of 4 year old children who exited foster care that year was 4% of the total.

However, for the babies, 18% of the children taken were under a year old, representing 49,234 babies. Only 11,153 exited the system, which is 8% of those who exited the system.

Just 10% of all the children of all ages taken by Child Protective Services that year were in the system less than a month. Most stayed in the system for 6 months to 2 years.

Aniya was just 4 months old when she was mistakenly given the Gardasil vaccine. When she became ill, CPS blamed her mother who is still fighting to get her back. See story.

Fully 25% of the children deemed to be “waiting for adoption” were babies who came into the system at under a year old. These are defined as “children who have a goal of adoption and/or whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated.” (Source.)

The numbers are clear that babies are the most likely age group to be seized from their parents, not returned, and adopted out. 92% of the adopters receive an “adoption subsidy,” which is a taxpayer-funded financial incentive to adopt.

The same report states that less than 16% of the children taken by Child Protective Services are taken for reasons of physical or sexual abuse.

The number of children being taken has steadily increased every year since 2012, the earliest year covered by the AFCARS report. The number of terminations of parental rights and children “waiting to be adopted has also shown a steady increase.

Early Separation Devastates Babies’ Development

What kind of impact is there on babies who are taken away and separated from their parents?

A University of Florida study reported by Science Daily looked at the babies of babies taken from mothers who use cocaine, comparing those who were taken from their mothers with those who were not taken.

They found that those in foster care were much “less likely to smile, reach, roll over or sit up” than babies who stayed with their mothers.

The most striking difference was among the babies who were taken as newborns. Dr. Indrani Sinha, pediatric resident at UF involved in the study, said:

But it was the babies who were immediately placed in foster care after birth that were at greatest risk for lowered motor development.

See:

Study: Children from Poor Parents, Even if they have a Drug Problem, do Worse if Put into Foster Care

It is clear that babies simply need their own mothers, even if the mother has issues.

Bonding and Attachment

Psychologists tell us that basic trust is established within the first year of life. Bonding and attachment are essential to the child’s development, and children who are not able to bond with their parents suffer great emotional and psychological harm.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges that:

A large body of evidence demonstrates that the mother’s sensitivity in responding appropriately to her baby’s needs is a principal determinant of the baby’s attachment pattern. (Source).

A person’s ability to trust is formed within the first year of life, and it is directly connected to specifically the mother meeting the needs of her baby.

Lori Ibrahim’s newborn was taken after she screened positive for properly prescribed medication. Story here/

The field of pre and perinatal psychology tells us that the “primal period,” the period of the baby growing in the womb, the birth, and the early days, weeks, and months after birth have a profound impact on our growth and development as a human being.

A groundbreaking documentary called, “What Babies Want” was produced several years ago that discussed this early period of the life of a baby and the importance of the baby bonding with the parents. Many recognized members of the Association of Pre and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH) lent their insights to the film.

The baby has been inside the mother’s womb for about 9 months, and has been able to hear her voice since at least 5 months. Baby is born recognizing her voice and expecting to see her face. If the father has been present, the newborn will recognize his voice as well.

Birth psychologist Ray Castellino says in the film:

Baby knows mom from inside. Meeting mom from outside is a different experience. The way they come into contact – that sets the pattern.

Marti Glenn, PhD, is the founding President of Santa Barbara Graduate Institute which offers degrees in prenatal -perinatal, somatic, and clinical psychology. She specializes in the studies of affective neuroscience with attachment, early development, and trauma. She says:

From the very beginning, we’re building the capacity to trust, and if the baby isn’t held and treated gently, if the baby is taken away and mom and baby are separated, the very first impression that the baby has is “Where’s my mom?”

The late Dr. David Chamberlain was a psychologist and author of “The Mind of Your Newborn Baby.” He wrote often of the way that society treats babies as though they are less than real people:

We were not treating [their cries] as genuine communication, because obstetrics – medicine in general has this idea that the baby could not be having a real experience, so whatever you did to it was ok.

He was one of the first to raise the alarm that newborns could indeed feel real pain in a time when doctors routinely operated on newborns without the benefit of anesthesia.

Oxytocin and Trust

Biologically, when a baby breastfeeds or is held skin-to-skin, a hormone called oxytocin is released. French Obstetrician Dr. Michelle Odent refers to oxytocin as “the love hormone.” Swiss researchers studied the relationship between oxytocin and trust. They found that the oxytocin hormone literally increases the level of trust in humans. (Source).

The Bible talks about this connection. Psalm 22:9 says:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast. (NIV)

The word for “trust” in the original Hebrew language is “batach” (982 Strongs). It literally means to attach oneself, to trust, feel safe, secure, or be confident. In the King James Version, the word is “hope.” The basic idea of this is firmness or solidity.

It is learned at the mother’s breast and through skin-to-skin contact.

Baby Braeton was seized from the hospital without a court order or warrant. The family has since been exonerated for thecharges that DHR knew from the beginning were bogus. Story here.

The Hebrew word batach is linked to the New Testament Greek word for hope – elpis/elpizo (1679/1680 Strongs).  The literal definition of this Greek word is:

the desire of something good with the expectation of receiving it.

Every single time the word hope is used in the King James Version, it is this word, as in Hebrews 11:1 –

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

It is this trust, this hope, the Psalmist says that is learned at the mother’s breast.

Science and Scripture confirm what psychologists tell us: Babies are born with the innate need to bond with their mothers and fathers.

Basic Trust Sabotaged by CPS

What harm are we doing to babies when social workers are allowed to literally snatch 1 and 2 day old infants from their mothers’ breasts?

Dr. Jay Gordon is a pediatrician who values babies and specializes in breastfeeding. His philosophy on his website is:

No one knows your child better than you do.

He believes that even a hospital separation causes harm. In “What Babies Want,” Dr. Gordon says:

My medical intuition would tell me that there are lasting consequences to being hurt when you’r a newborn baby or to being separated from your parents when you’re a newborn baby. It really is a big deal.

The statistics on the failures of the foster care system bear out the devastating effects of this separation. Children in foster care have higher rates of PTSD, more teen pregnancies, higher risk of being a victim of sex trafficking, more eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia, more chance of being incarcerated or homeless, and are more likely to wind up on death row than children who were not in foster care.

Repeated studies show that they are safer in their own homes than in foster care even if that home is a troubled home. They are at least 6 times more likely to be molested, raped, abused, or killed in foster care than if they had remained home.

Those who cannot remain with their parents should be placed with relatives as a priority over strangers so that they can maintain some connection to their own identity and history.

It is a big deal that happens in hospitals all across America. Health Impact News has covered several stories of medical kidnappings of 1 and 2-day-old newborns, and we regularly hear from readers whose newborns were taken.

The numbers from the Department of Health and Human Services tell us that most of these newborns and babies under a year old who are taken by social workers will not be returned quickly, or at all.

Newborns are frequently taken from mothers who have previously had a child taken for any reason, whether the allegations were substantiated or not, and whether or not the previous case was based on false allegations.

There is a significant market for babies of people who want to adopt. There are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies available. It is a multi-billion dollar industry with children as the commodity.

The Cartee family’s newborn was taken from the hospital. The other children were taken after their autistic son escaped from the house. The baby went to a woman in the market to adopt a baby girl. She was 2 before they came home. Story here.

Arizona Poised to Steal More Babies

The conclusions reached by those who truly understand the needs of babies for their biological family vary drastically from those of social workers and the governor of Arizona, the state which takes more children than any other state.

Governor Doug Ducey just signed Senate Bill 1473 into law. According to the City Journal, the bill gives “foster families the same legal standing as blood relatives when it comes to adopting kids under age three.”

The author of the article acknowledges the importance of infancy and early childhood, but fails to recognize the deep need that babies have for their own parents. They criticize policies, such as the one in the recent Family First law signed by President Trump, which aim to keep children with their own relatives. The author closes with a statement that is baffling in its self-contradiction:

Given the importance of the first three years for babies’ emotional and intellectual development, it’s hard to understand how child-welfare workers can justify their family policies [of placing children with family before strangers].

See stories of newborns taken from their parents, many from breastfeeding mothers:

Alabama Child Protective Services Steals New-born Breast-feeding Baby from Rape Victim While Still at the Hospital

Florida Mom Seeks 2nd Opinion on Dying Newborn After Car Accident – Loses Custody of All Three Children and Baby Dies in State Care

1-Hour Old Newborn Baby Kidnapped at Kentucky Hospital because Parents Refused to Take Parenting Classes

Tennessee Children with Brittle Bones Suffer in State Care as Mom Charged with SBS

Alabama Newborn Baby Kidnapped at Hospital with No Warrant, No Court Order, No Emergency Circumstances

Breastfeeding 2-day Old Newborn Seized From Parents Because Mother Has Disability

Medical Kidnapping in Los Angeles: 2 Day Old Infant Seized at Hospital From Mother

Alabama DHR Seizes Newborn Baby with No Court Order, No Trial, and No Evidence

Homebirthed Newborn Medically Kidnapped at Illinois Children’s Hospital

Missouri Hospital Refuses Transfer of Sick Baby – Kidnaps Kansas Couple’s Newborn Child

Newborn Baby Kidnapped from Alabama Hospital After Parents Decline Birth Certificate and SSN

Enraged Idaho Community Acts to Help Young Couple Who Refused Vaccine for Newborn – Baby Back Home for Now

California Mom Fights to Get Child Back Removed from Hospital at Birth






The 3 Deadliest Words in the World: ‘It’s a Girl’

by Paula Bolyard


{A 2013 article that highlights the real war on women in China and India where infanticide on female babies is the norm. There is no gender confusion there but it's nothing that advances the media agenda. - ED}

The United Nations estimates there are as many as 200 million girls missing from the world today — killed, aborted or abandoned, simply because they are females. India and China alone “eliminate” more girls than are born in the United States every year. 

In India, the desire for male children has led to widespread sex-selection abortions targeting females. On average, one girl a minute is aborted in India just because she is female. Infanticide — the murder of baby girls who survive birth — is also widely practiced in some areas. 

According to The Invisible Girl Project, “Infanticide is so widely practiced in some areas of India, that the mortality rate for girls between the ages of 1-5 is 75% higher than the mortality rate for boys of the same age.” Girls and women also die from neglect, lethal violence, and dowry killings. There are 37 million more men than women in India, a statistic that has contributed to widespread human trafficking; women and girls are regularly sold in India’s brothels.

In China, the country’s one-child policy has led to 18 million more boys than girls under the age of 15.  One out of every six girls is lost to gendercide. All Girls Allowed says that, “Gendercide, defined as ‘the systematic extermination of a particular gender,’ has become widespread in China. With the use of illegal ultrasound equipment, couples can determine the sex of their child and choose to abort the female fetus. In other cases, midwives have been reported to deliver “stillborn” girls by strangling the female infant with the umbilical cord as she is delivered.” 

New York Times contributor Mai Jian described the brutality of the forced abortions and forced sterilization, particularly in rural villages in China: “Village family-planning officers vigilantly chart the menstrual cycle and pelvic-exam results of every woman of childbearing age in their area. If a woman gets pregnant without permission and is unable to pay the often exorbitant fine for violating the policy, she risks being subjected to a forced abortion.”  

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, said that China’s one-child policy “causes more violence against women and girls than any other official policy on earth.”

Human rights advocate Markus Redding from Columbia University has called gendercide “our generation’s holocaust — a systematic extermination of millions just because they are females.” 

He said, “Most people can’t believe it. They can’t believe the numbers. When you talk about a Nazi holocaust occurring right now, people are in denial about it.” Redding said it’s a direct violation of human rights and against international law and we must mobilize the international community to end this abuse of women.  

It’s A Girl, a feature-length documentary that focuses on gendercide and forced abortion in India and China, was recently presented to Amnesty International’s film series against gender violence by Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. The documentary is part of the group’s “Save a Girl” campaign that includes providing monthly support for women at risk of aborting or abandoning their baby girls and emergency help for women in danger as a result of oppressive coercive family planning policies.

Littlejohn says we must “stop the violence” and end the war on women.


 


The article first appeared here

New Way to Kidnap Children from Their Homes: Pretend to be a Social Worker

by Terri LaPoint  (Health Impact News)

It is the one of the scariest things that a parent can ever experience. There is a knock on the door. Someone says, “I am a social worker from Child Protective Services. We got a call and I need to see your children.”

It happens every day in every state all across America. Social workers, alone or accompanied by police, show up to homes and to hospital rooms without a court order or warrant. There is no emergency circumstance where a child’s life is in danger in the time it would take for them to get a court order or warrant signed by a judge, as provided for in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

As terrifying as this is, what if the person on the doorstep is not even a social worker? What if they are a kidnapper posing as a social worker?

This happened to a mother in New York recently. Ashley Bradley posted her story on Facebook, and the post went viral. If she had not known her rights, she could easily have fallen prey to a scheme to kidnap her 9-month-old baby.

CafeMom writes:

Ashley Bradley had just put her little boy down for a nap on Wednesday afternoon when there was an unexpected knock at her door. The mom from New York wasn’t expecting any visitors, which is why the woman on her doorstep caught her off guard.

But when she opened the door, this stranger announced that she was from Child Protective Services and was there to take Bradley’s 9-month-old son away.

Bradley describes her reaction on Facebook:

At first I was so mad and hurt I wasn’t thinking right but the[n] I realized that she 1. Didn’t have a state issued badge, 2. My son’s name was spelled wrong on the folder she had in her hand and 3. I have no cps cases so they would not have been coming to my house.

She wisely demanded proof of the woman’s identity, but the social worker impersonator refused. Bradley called the police, and the woman disappeared.

Similar to Visits by Real Social Workers

At first glance, the clues that this was an impersonator appear legitimate. However, the behavior of the criminal at Ms. Bradley’s door is no different from the behavior of Child Protective Services social workers all over America.

Many parents have reported to Health Impact News that the social workers who take their children refuse to give their names or show their badges. Some have a badge that is turned around backwards.

It is not at all uncommon for children’s names to be misspelled on the folder or in documents. In fact, social worker documents and even medical records are routinely filled with inaccuracies.

Perhaps the most disturbing similarity of this case to hundreds of thousands of real CPS cases in the United States and other countries is this statement by Ashley Bradley:

I have no cps cases so they would not have been coming to my house.

This is true for many parents whose children are taken by the state. Sometimes their first contact with the system is the time that a social worker shows up on their doorstep, unannounced, out of the blue, even when the parents are innocent of any wrongdoing.

“But I Haven’t Done Anything Wrong”

The reality is that only 17% of allegations against parents are even substantiated (Source). The majority of children seized by Child Protective Services should never have been taken. Innocent parents lose their children to the state every single day.

Parents who have done nothing wrong often think that there obviously must be a mistake. If they let the social worker in and show them everything is fine, many parents naively believe that it will all get sorted out and be ok.

Too many parents have learned the hard way that they could not be more wrong.

If the real CPS shows up on the doorstep, the social worker has a reason. They have received a report, whether true, false, or completely made up by someone with a vendetta, and the social worker is there to investigate.

If they had substantial reason to believe the grounds were legitimate, then they could have obtained a warrant. Most don’t. Many of the investigations amount to little more than “fishing expeditions.” Once the investigation opens and the social worker gets a foot in the door, they frequently “find” something – anything – to try to legitimize their case against the parents.

One attorney described the allegations thus:

They throw everything they can think up at the wall and hope that something sticks.

New York Incident Not an Isolated Event

SimpleMost reports other similar incidents to the one in New York:

Unfortunately, this is not the first case of its kind. Shortly after Bradley’s call to police, Delaware State Police began searching for three people accused of posing as caseworkers from Child Protective Services in the town of Dover. The suspects told a woman they had to check on the welfare of her children. Again, they could not provide credentials or any other proof of identification.

In Texas, a stranger also posing as a caseworker told a father to hand over his three children. That father was armed and able to get his family to safety.

In 2017, police in Milton, Pennsylvania, say a woman tried to barge into a home and take a child without any explanation. When she was asked to provide identification, she ran away.

Child Trafficking

The police officer who came to Ashley Bradley’s home in response to her call told her that the attempted kidnapping could be linked to child trafficking. She wrote:

He said people come from different countries and states kidnap kids and traffic them it does not matter what the age.

The police officer who came to Ashley Bradley’s home said that this could have been a possible attempt at abduction for child trafficking. Source.

While it is true that children can be snatched by strangers or people posing as social workers in order to traffic them, the overwhelming majority of children rescued from child sex trafficking come from the foster care system.

The evidence is undeniable that children in the Child Protective system are at a much higher risk for being sexually trafficked than other children. Sometimes CPS workers are directly involved in the trafficking.

See:


Report: Obama’s HHS Placed Children With Human Traffickers, Media Dead Silent

by Benjamin Arie

A terrible double standard has been uncovered within the media, and it centers on one of the left’s favorite talking points this month: Underage illegal immigration.

For weeks, the topic has dominated headlines and sparked what seems like coordinated outrage among liberals.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that the Obama administration detained minors at the border for years, the left has pointed fingers instead at President Donald Trump for enforcing regulations that were enacted before he was even president.

Pundits including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough even compared U.S. law enforcement officials to Nazis, all because they separate children who are brought along during the commission of federal crimes from adults who are being placed into criminal custody.

This is akin to being outraged because police don’t throw the children of suspects in jail with their parents during arrests, but instead take them into protective environments.

The left-leaning media stayed strangely silent when the detention of migrant children went on for years before Trump took office… and now it looks like they also kept quiet when Barack Obama’s administration literally placed immigrant children in the hands of human traffickers just a few years ago.

“The United States government placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called ‘caregivers,'” New York magazine reported in 2016, based on a Senate report.

Blame Trump! The problem, for the left, however, is that this horrific mistreatment of immigrant children happened in 2013 — right in the middle of the Obama presidency, and two years before Trump even announced he was a candidate.

“In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border,” continued New York magazine.

“At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death,” the report continued. That’s right: Around the same time that now-infamous pictures of the Obama administration putting migrant children in caged detention areas were being snapped, the same administration was directly responsible for essentially handing foreign kids into child slavery.

“It is intolerable that human trafficking — modern-day slavery — could occur in our own backyard,” Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, told The New York Times at the time.

Politics

Report: Obama’s HHS Placed Children With Human Traffickers, Media Dead Silent

By Benjamin Arie
June 17, 2018 at 3:08pm

A terrible double standard has been uncovered within the media, and it centers on one of the left’s favorite talking points this month: Underage illegal immigration.

For weeks, the topic has dominated headlines and sparked what seems like coordinated outrage among liberals.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that the Obama administration detained minors at the border for years, the left has pointed fingers instead at President Donald Trump for enforcing regulations that were enacted before he was even president.

Advertisement – story continues below

Pundits including MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough even compared U.S. law enforcement officials to Nazis, all because they separate children who are brought along during the commission of federal crimes from adults who are being placed into criminal custody.

This is akin to being outraged because police don’t throw the children of suspects in jail with their parents during arrests, but instead take them into protective environments.

TRENDING: Liberals Spread Viral Photo of Child in Cage, Silenced After Learning Who Was Really Behind Photo`

The left-leaning media stayed strangely silent when the detention of migrant children went on for years before Trump took office… and now it looks like they also kept quiet when Barack Obama’s administration literally placed immigrant children in the hands of human traffickers just a few years ago.

Advertisement – story continues below

“The United States government placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called ‘caregivers,'” New York magazine reported in 2016, based on a Senate report.

Blame Trump! The problem, for the left, however, is that this horrific mistreatment of immigrant children happened in 2013 — right in the middle of the Obama presidency, and two years before Trump even announced he was a candidate.

“In the fall of 2013, tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors traveled to the U.S. southern border,” continued New York magazine.

“At least six of those children were eventually resettled on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio, where their sponsors forced them to work 12 hours a day under threats of death,” the report continued.

That’s right: Around the same time that now-infamous pictures of the Obama administration putting migrant children in caged detention areas were being snapped, the same administration was directly responsible for essentially handing foreign kids into child slavery.

“It is intolerable that human trafficking — modern-day slavery — could occur in our own backyard,” Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, told The New York Times at the time.

“But what makes the Marion cases even more alarming is that a U.S. government agency was responsible for delivering some of the victims into the hands of their abusers,” the senator continued.

The Obama administration was appallingly lax at conducting even basic checks about the adults who showed up to “claim” migrant children.

“As detention centers became incapable of housing the massive influx of migrants, the [Obama-run] Department of Health and Human Services started placing children into the care of sponsors who would oversee the minors until their bids for refugee status could be reviewed,” explained New York magazine, again confirming that the detention of child migrants took place long before Trump.

The current administration at least provides comfortable and safe housing for the children who are separated from their parents. Obama’s team did something very different.“ But in many cases, officials failed to confirm whether the adults volunteering for this task were actually relatives or good Samaritans — and not unscrupulous egg farmers or child molesters,” the magazine reported about the Obama-era scandal.

“The department performed check-in visits at caretakers’ homes in only 5 percent of cases between 2013 and 2015,” it continued. “The Senate’s investigation built on an Associated Press report that found more than two dozen unaccompanied children were placed in homes where they were sexually abused, starved, or forced into slave labor.”

Shockingly, nobody knows for certain how many immigrant children ended up in horrific slavery-like circumstances under Obama’s watch. Over 90,000 immigrant children were placed into so-called “sponsor care” during the time-frame of 2013 to 2015.

“Exactly how many of those fell prey to traffickers is unknown, because the agency does not keep track,” New York magazine concluded.

Even after the scandal was uncovered and locations such as the slave-like egg farm in Marion, Ohio, were raided by police, the media remained oddly quiet.

A Google search of this incident reveals only a handful of media outlets covering the story between 2013 and 2014, despite the clearly huge implications of this Obama scandal.

It seems that when immigration enforcement policies made President Obama look bad, they were swept under the rug. Now that the same border problems that have existed for decades can be used against Donald Trump, however, liberal journalists have miraculously found the backbone to cover the story.

The reality is that border and immigration issues are tough, and children are unfortunately caught in the middle.

Just as it’s heartbreaking but necessary for police to make an arrest when children are witnesses, or for Child Protective Services to step in when a family situation turns ugly, the presence of minors doesn’t mean that we stop enforcing national laws. This would only encourage law-breakers to use children as “legal shields” as they commit more crimes.

Reality isn’t always pretty. There are no easy or magic answers on how to enforce U.S. border laws while being humane and compassionate to innocent kids dragged into the chaos by adults. It’s a difficult situation from any angle.

Trump’s administration is doing its best to deal with a problem it inherited from past presidents — but the fact that the mainstream media barely said a word about much worse treatment of migrants should be a giant red flag about the real agenda being pushed by liberal journalists now.

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.


Little Barbies: Sex Trafficking of Young Girls Is America’s Dirty Little Secret

byJohn W. Whitehead


Children are being targeted and sold for sex in America every day.”—John Ryan, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children


They’re called the Little Barbies.
 
Children, young girls—some as young as 9 years old—are being bought and sold for sex in America. The average age for a young woman being sold for sex is now 13 years old.
 
This is America’s dirty little secret.
 
Sex trafficking—especially when it comes to the buying and selling of young girls—has become big business in America, the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second most-lucrative commodity traded illegally after drugs and guns.
 
As investigative journalist Amy Fine Collins notes, “It’s become more lucrative and much safer to sell malleable teens than drugs or guns. A pound of heroin or an AK-47 can be retailed once, but a young girl can be sold 10 to 15 times a day—and a ‘righteous’ pimp confiscates 100 percent of her earnings.”
 
Consider this: every two minutes, a child is exploited in the sex industry.
 
According to USA Today, adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.


They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse,” writes journalist Tim Swarens, who spent more than a year investigating the sex trade in America.
 
In Georgia alone, it is estimated that 7,200 men (half of them in their 30s) seek to purchase sex with adolescent girls each month, averaging roughly 300 a day.
 
On average, a child might be raped by 6,000 men during a five-year period of servitude.   It is estimated that at least 100,000 children—girls and boys—are bought and sold for sex in the U.S. every year, with as many as 300,000 children in danger of being trafficked each year. Some of these children are forcefully abducted, others are runaways, and still others are sold into the system by relatives and acquaintances.
 
“Human trafficking—the commercial sexual exploitation of American children and women, via the Internet, strip clubs, escort services, or street prostitution—is on its way to becoming one of the worst crimes in the U.S.,” said prosecutor Krishna Patel.
 
This is an industry that revolves around cheap sex on the fly, with young girls and women who are sold to 50 men each day for $25 apiece, while their handlers make $150,000 to $200,000 per child each year.   Who buys a child for sex? Otherwise ordinary men from all walks of life.

This is not a problem found only in big cities.   It’s happening everywhere, right under our noses, in suburbs, cities and towns across the nation.
 
As Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children points out, “The only way not to find this in any American city is simply not to look for it.”
 
Don’t fool yourselves into believing that this is merely a concern for lower income communities or immigrants.
 
It’s not.
 
It is estimated that there are 100,000 to 150,000 under-aged child sex workers in the U.S. These girls aren’t volunteering to be sex slaves. They’re being lured—forced—trafficked into it. In most cases, they have no choice.
 
In order to avoid detection (in some cases aided and abetted by the police) and cater to male buyers’ demand for sex with different women, pimps and the gangs and crime syndicates they work for have turned sex trafficking into a highly mobile enterprise, with trafficked girls, boys and women constantly being moved from city to city, state to state, and country to country.


For instance, the Baltimore-Washington area, referred to as The Circuit, with its I-95 corridor dotted with rest stops, bus stations and truck stops, is a hub for the sex trade.   No doubt about it: this is a highly profitable, highly organized and highly sophisticated sex trafficking business that operates in towns large and small, raking in upwards of $9.5 billion a year in the U.S. alone by abducting and selling young girls for sex.
 
Every year, the girls being bought and sold gets younger and younger.
 
The average age of those being trafficked is 13. Yet as the head of a group that combats trafficking pointed out, “Let’s think about what average means. That means there are children younger than 13. That means 8-, 9-, 10-year-olds.
 
“For every 10 women rescued, there are 50 to 100 more women who are brought in by the traffickers. Unfortunately, they’re not 18- or 20-year-olds anymore,” noted a 25-year-old victim of trafficking. “They’re minors as young as 13 who are being trafficked. They’re little girls.”
 
Where did this appetite for young girls come from?
 
Look around you. 

Young girls have been sexualized for years now in music videos, on billboards, in television ads, and in clothing stores. Marketers have created a demand for young flesh and a ready supply of over-sexualized children.
 
“All it takes is one look at [certain social media] photos of teens to see examples—if they aren’t imitating porn they’ve actually seen, they’re imitating the porn-inspired images and poses they’ve absorbed elsewhere,” writes Jessica Bennett for Newsweek. “Latex, corsets and stripper heels, once the fashion of porn stars, have made their way into middle and high school.”
 
This is what Bennett refers to as the “pornification of a generation.”
 
“In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn’t take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives,” concludes Bennett. “Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.”
 
In other words, the culture is grooming these young people to be preyed upon by sexual predators. And then we wonder why our young women are being preyed on, trafficked and abused?

Social media makes it all too easy. As one news center reported, “Finding girls is easy for pimps. They look on MySpace, Facebook, and other social networks. They and their assistants cruise malls, high schools and middle schools. They pick them up at bus stops. On the trolley. Girl-to-girl recruitment sometimes happens.” Foster homes and youth shelters have also become prime targets for traffickers.
 
Rarely do these girls enter into prostitution voluntarily. Many start out as runaways or throwaways, only to be snatched up by pimps or larger sex rings. Others, persuaded to meet up with a stranger after interacting online through one of the many social networking sites, find themselves quickly initiated into their new lives as sex slaves.

Debbie, a straight-A student who belonged to a close-knit Air Force family living in Phoenix, Ariz., is an example of this trading of flesh. Debbie was 15 when she was snatched from her driveway by an acquaintance-friend. Forced into a car, Debbie was bound and taken to an unknown location, held at gunpoint and raped by multiple men. She was then crammed into a small dog kennel and forced to eat dog biscuits. Debbie’s captors advertised her services on Craigslist. Those who responded were often married with children, and the money that Debbie “earned” for sex was given to her kidnappers. The gang raping continued. After searching the apartment where Debbie was held captive, police finally found Debbie stuffed in a drawer under a bed. Her harrowing ordeal lasted for 40 days.

While Debbie was fortunate enough to be rescued, others are not so lucky. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, nearly 800,000 children go missing every year (roughly 2,185 children a day).
 
With a growing demand for sexual slavery and an endless supply of girls and women who can be targeted for abduction, this is not a problem that’s going away anytime soon.  For those trafficked, it’s a nightmare from beginning to end.  Those being sold for sex have an average life expectancy of seven years, and those years are a living nightmare of endless rape, forced drugging, humiliation, degradation, threats, disease, pregnancies, abortions, miscarriages, torture, pain, and always the constant fear of being killed or, worse, having those you love hurt or killed.
 
Peter Landesman paints the full horrors of life for those victims of the sex trade in his New York Times article “The Girls Next Door”:

Andrea told me that she and the other children she was held with were frequently beaten to keep them off-balance and obedient. Sometimes they were videotaped while being forced to have sex with adults or one another. Often, she said, she was asked to play roles: the therapist patient or the obedient daughter. Her cell of sex traffickers offered three age ranges of sex partners--toddler to age 4, 5 to 12 and teens--as well as what she called a “damage group.” “In the damage group, they can hit you or do anything they want to,” she explained. “Though sex always hurts when you are little, so it’s always violent, everything was much more painful once you were placed in the damage group.”

What Andrea described next shows just how depraved some portions of American society have become. “They’d get you hungry then to train you” to have oral sex. “They put honey on a man. For the littlest kids, you had to learn not to gag. And they would push things in you so you would open up better. We learned responses. Like if they wanted us to be sultry or sexy or scared. Most of them wanted you scared. When I got older, I’d teach the younger kids how to float away so things didn’t hurt.”

Immigration and customs enforcement agents at the Cyber Crimes Center in Fairfax, Va., report that when it comes to sex, the appetites of many Americans have now changed. What was once considered abnormal is now the norm. These agents are tracking a clear spike in the demand for harder-core pornography on the Internet. As one agent noted, “We’ve become desensitized by the soft stuff; now we need a harder and harder hit.”

This trend is reflected by the treatment many of the girls receive at the hands of the drug traffickers and the men who purchase them. Peter Landesman interviewed Rosario, a Mexican woman who had been trafficked to New York and held captive for a number of years. She said: “In America, we had ‘special jobs.’ Oral sex, anal sex, often with many men. Sex is now more adventurous, harder.”
 
A common thread woven through most survivors’ experiences is being forced to go without sleep or food until they have met their sex quota of at least 40 men. One woman recounts how her trafficker made her lie face down on the floor when she was pregnant and then literally jumped on her back, forcing her to miscarry.
 
Holly Austin Smith was abducted when she was 14 years old, raped, and then forced to prostitute herself. Her pimp, when brought to trial, was only made to serve a year in prison.
 
Barbara Amaya was repeatedly sold between traffickers, abused, shot, stabbed, raped, kidnapped, trafficked, beaten, and jailed all before she was 18 years old. “I had a quota that I was supposed to fill every night. And if I didn’t have that amount of money, I would get beat, thrown down the stairs. He beat me once with wire coat hangers, the kind you hang up clothes, he straightened it out and my whole back was bleeding.”
 
As David McSwane recounts in a chilling piece for the Herald-Tribune: “In Oakland Park, an industrial Fort Lauderdale suburb, federal agents in 2011 encountered a brothel operated by a married couple. Inside ‘The Boom Boom Room,’ as it was known, customers paid a fee and were given a condom and a timer and left alone with one of the brothel’s eight teenagers, children as young as 13. A 16-year-old foster child testified that he acted as security, while a 17-year-old girl told a federal judge she was forced to have sex with as many as 20 men a night.”
 
One particular sex trafficking ring catered specifically to migrant workers employed seasonally on farms throughout the southeastern states, especially the Carolinas and Georgia, although it’s a flourishing business in every state in the country. Traffickers transport the women from farm to farm, where migrant workers would line up outside shacks, as many as 30 at a time, to have sex with them before they were transported to yet another farm where the process would begin all over again.
 
This growing evil is, for all intents and purposes, out in the open.
 
Trafficked women and children are advertised on the internet, transported on the interstate, and bought and sold in swanky hotels.  Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government’s war on sex trafficking—much like the government’s war on terrorism, drugs and crime—has become a perfect excuse for inflicting more police state tactics (police check points, searches, surveillance, and heightened security) on a vulnerable public, while doing little to make our communities safer.
 
So what can you do?
 
Educate yourselves and your children about this growing menace in our communities.
 
Stop feeding the monster: Sex trafficking is part of a larger continuum in America that runs the gamut from homelessness, poverty, and self-esteem issues to sexualized television, the glorification of a pimp/ho culture—what is often referred to as the pornification of America—and a billion dollar sex industry built on the back of pornography, music, entertainment, etc.
 
This epidemic is largely one of our own making, especially in a corporate age where the value placed on human life takes a backseat to profit. It is estimated that the porn industry brings in more money than Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Yahoo.
 
Call on your city councils, elected officials and police departments to make the battle against sex trafficking a top priority, more so even than the so-called war on terror and drugs and the militarization of law enforcement.  Stop prosecuting adults for victimless “crimes” such as growing lettuce in their front yard and focus on putting away the pimps and buyers who victimize these young women.
 
Finally, the police need to do a better job of training, identifying and responding to these issues; communities and social services need to do a better job of protecting runaways, who are the primary targets of traffickers; legislators need to pass legislation aimed at prosecuting traffickers and “johns,” the buyers who drive the demand for sex slaves; and hotels need to stop enabling these traffickers, by providing them with rooms and cover for their dirty deeds.
 
That so many women and children continue to be victimized, brutalized and treated like human cargo is due to three things: one, a consumer demand that is increasingly lucrative for everyone involved—except the victims; two, a level of corruption so invasive on both a local and international scale that there is little hope of working through established channels for change; and three, an eerie silence from individuals who fail to speak out against such atrocities.
 
But the truth is that we are all guilty of contributing to this human suffering. The traffickers are guilty. The consumers are guilty. The corrupt law enforcement officials are guilty. The women’s groups who do nothing are guilty. The foreign peacekeepers and aid workers who contribute to the demand for sex slaves are guilty. Most of all, every individual who does not raise a hue and cry over the atrocities being committed against women and children in almost every nation around the globe—including the United States—is guilty.



Oregon Judge Tries to Silence Mother of Medically Kidnapped Children: Orders Website Taken Down

by HealthImpactNewsStaff

 

Multnomah County Oregon Circuit Court Judge Susan M. Svetkey recently ordered Trisha Delaurent of Vancouver, Washington, to take down a website and Facebook page that chronicled her struggles with Oregon CPS to get her children back. Trisha was charged with “medical neglect” of her oldest son, Max, who is 15.

Oregon CPS not only removed Max from her custody, but also his 3 siblings, including a newborn baby just 12 days after he was born.
Baby Elias – Removed from family just 12 days after birth. Image Source.

The website chronicling the family’s struggles is injusticeoregon.com, which has since been taken over by other interested parties, so that Trisha no longer has control over the website. The website was ordered to be taken down by Oct. 2nd, but is still up at the time of publication. The Facebook page for injusticeoregon has apparently been removed. 


Family Court Judges Routinely Violate the 1st Amendment

Judge Svetkey. Image source/contact info.


Here at MedicalKidnap.com we have had family court judges order our stories about families who claim they have had their children taken away unjustly be removed from our website. These judges usually threaten the parents and issue gag orders against them that many attorneys have claimed are unconstitutional. The parents are, of course, terrified, because the state is holding their children in custody. Sometimes the parents come back and beg us to remove their stories. A few times judges have threatened to jail parents for failing to comply with their order.

But Health Impact News has never given in to pressure to remove these stories. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives us the freedom to publish these stories, and each time we stood firm and defied those orders, any legal action threatened by the judge against the parents, such as going to jail, has (so far) not happened.


Why Does Oregon Want this Mother Silenced?

Since the website injusticeoregon.com is still up despite a judge’s order that it be taken down, much of the background of this case is documented on this site. Guy Bini, writing for GarrettsVoice.com has also covered their story recently:

Delaurent has been accused of medical child abuse. She has publicized her family’s story and claims her innocence. The information published on the website has been highly critical of both Oregon CPS and law enforcement investigators who have been looking into the medical child abuse allegations.
 

Specifically, Delaurent has published a counter narrative with details that point to a lack of a genuine investigation which includes false reporting, false statements, failure to investigate and witness tampering all initiated by state investigators.


According to Judge Svetkey, the creation of the website and FB page flies in the face of state and federal laws designed to help protect the privacy and confidentiality of minor children who become caught up in the DHS/CPS system. However, DHS attorneys representing the children did not present any documentation during the 9/28 hearing that would suggest Delaurent was in violation of any state or federal privacy laws, nor were any specific laws referenced by code or by statute. Instead, state attorneys asked Delaurent if she posted medical information about the children which any parent has a right to do. Delaurent answered “Yes” which embolden Judge Svetkey to order the entire website injusticeoregon.com to be shut down.

Delaurent, a mother of four, is currently embattled with both Oregon DHS and Washington DSHS over the custodial rights of her children.

In October of 2016, the three oldest children were taken into temporary protective custody by Oregon CPS and later placed with the children’s maternal grandmother. On the surface it seems like an optimal plan to place the three older children with their maternal grandmother, until one scratches the surface to dig into grandma’s background and discovers a long-term hostile relationship towards Delaurent.

In February 2017, Delaurent gave birth to her 4th child. Twelve days after the birth of her youngest son, Washington CPS took temporary custody of him as well based upon a ‘threat of harm’ due to the other 3 children being taken by Oregon CPS.

Delaurent’s motivation to develop a website was to publish her family’s story. It was born out of her frustration which stemmed from what she believed to be a biased investigation on the part of Oregon CPS investigator, Steve Jackson, and Gresham Police Officer, Detective Robert Harley who is assigned to the Portland Child Abuse Team known as CAT. Neither investigator interviewed friends or family members close to the Delaurent family. Instead, they sought the opinions of those who were adversarial to Delaurent, and that includes Delaurent’s mother.

In April of 2017, Detective Harley interviewed Delaurent, six months after the decision was made by the state to take her children into temporary protective custody, and only after she had made numerous requests to be interviewed.

Medical abuse cases typically involve parents who fail or neglect to seek medical attention for their children, especially those children who have life threatening ailments. Delaurent has done the exact opposite. Delaurent has sought out medical treatment for her children and accepted the medical advice given by her doctors. She has made certain that doctor’s orders were followed. Then why has Delaurent been accused of medical child abuse?


Read the full article here.


Alaska Homeschool Dad Framed by FBI – Social Services Targets Children for Political Reasons

by Brian Shilhavy

Today, Health Impact News is reporting on the story of Francis August Schaeffer Cox. Schaeffer Cox is allegedly a political prisoner today, serving a 26 year prison sentence for crimes he never committed. 

Schaeffer Cox, a well known 2nd Amendment lobbyist who had won 38% of the vote in a State House election, became the subject of an intense FBI investigation after he angered state and federal authorities by openly accusing them of drug trafficking and child prostitution. Oil pipeline service company executive, Bill Allen, who had been spared prosecution on multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors in exchange for his 2008 testimony against pro-2nd Amendment Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, was among those implicated.

The State Wide Drug Taskforce supplied children for sex to a number of state and federal officials in exchange for those official’s cooperation in concealing the ongoing illicit drug trafficking activities of the State Wide Drug Taskforce,” Schaeffer Cox said. Not long after these public statements, the same departments that Schaeffer Cox accused of corruption sent in numerous provocateurs to try to switch his efforts off of exposing corruption and on to violent vigilante-type actions.

Schaeffer Cox, who believes in non-aggression and voluntarism, can be heard on multiple undercover recordings telling the provocateurs, “No, I’m going to pull a Ghandi, NOT a Rambo” and “if we turn violent, people will see us as the bad guys.” In what some have called a deviation from accepted investigative techniques, the FBI responded to Schaeffer Cox’s rejection of their violent proposals by creating a threat to his children that could serve as a motivator. Working with the Office of Child Services, the FBI filed a child neglect complaint regarding Schaeffer and his wife Marti’s 1 and 1/2 year old son. Because they do not require probable cause, child neglect complaints are an attractive tool for investigators who wish to enter a home, but lack any evidence to support a warrant.


Who is Schaeffer Cox? From his own words written from prison in 2013:

Dear Sensible People of a Candid World,

My name is Francis August Schaeffer Cox. I am a 29 year old, husband and a father of two young children.

I am a political prisoner in a secret Federal prison located in Marion, Illinois. I was sentenced to just under 26 years in prison on January of 2013.

I haven’t done anything illegal and I certainly haven’t done anything morally wrong. I will share my story with you as best as can be done in a letter. It is my hope that after investigating what has been done to me and my family you will conclude that it would be right for you to help us. To that end, this is our story.

I was born in Denver, Colorado U.S.A. to Gary and Jennifer Cox. My father, who attended West Point, was the pastor of a small church and taught Greek and Hebrew at a local university.

My mother was a schoolteacher before she had children. After my sister, two brothers, and I were born she stayed home to raise us and see to it that we all got a proper education.

In the early 90’s my father went into business with his brother David Cox, the former Chief of Staff for Senator David L. Boris. As a family we provided residential assisted living to the elderly. The business was very successful and our family became quite wealthy.

In 1999 my parents moved our family from Denver, Colorado to Fairbanks, Alaska where, 11 years later, I would be arrested and sent to prison after being accused of a vague and nonspecific conspiracy against the Federal Government. A conspiracy that, the prosecutors argued [sic], would take place at some unknown future time many years from now.

As a young man I loved the frontier of Alaska. At age 18 I led a month long expedition to the summit of 6100 meter Mt. McKinley. I would lead a second expedition two years later with my father by my side and in 2005 a third expedition that included my beautiful and beloved wife Marti. All three were successful.

My godparents introduced me to the sea and the commercial fishing industry. And together we pioneered new methods to harvest caviar from wild herring and release the fish unharmed. I did an apprenticeship in the construction industry and studied Artic [sic] building techniques. Before going into business for myself, I worked with a large company to build power plants and remote gold ore processing facilities in Alaska’s wilderness.

By age 23, with my faithful and loving wife as my partner, I was an accomplished businessman in my own right. Having achieved enough financial independence to no longer be living paycheck to paycheck I decided to run for public office.

I ran for the State House of Representatives. I came in second in a three way race with roughly 38% of the vote, an impressive feat for such a young, political newcomer. I was positioned well for a win in the next elections, two years later.

Little did I know the Federal government was about to unleash a hellish nightmare on me and my family that would prevent that from ever happening. My platform was simple: The government needs to follow the Constitution because it’s the law. I argued that when the government disregards the law and tramples on others, simply because they are powerful enough to do so and get away with it, it hurts them as a Nation. (continued below)

State Sponsored Kidnapping of Children for Political Reasons


Before continuing on with the Schaeffer Cox story, we need to address the question: Why is Health Impact News and MedicalKidnap.com publishing the Schaeffer Cox family story?

We are one of the few news sources that regularly reports on the state-sponsored kidnapping of children away from families by using “Child Protection Services.” We mostly cover medical kidnapping stories, explaining how families all across the U.S., every day, are losing their children simply because they disagreed with doctors, or were accused by medical professionals of abusing their children, when often such “abuse” is simply failing to take a physician’s advice for medical procedures.

Over the past few years, we have documented how children can be removed from families by the government in what has become a billion dollar child trafficking system. See:  The U.S. Foster Care System: Modern Day Slavery and Child Trafficking

Child Kidnapping and Trafficking: A Lucrative U.S. Business Funded by Taxpayers Called “Foster Care”

While a primary motivation to remove children from families and put them into the custody of the state is financial (many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of government jobs), there are other reasons such as putting sick children into drug trials, and trafficking them to pedophile groups. See:

Child Sex Trafficking through Child “Protection” Services Exposed – Kidnapping Children for Sex

Arizona Places 2 Year Old Child in Foster Pornographic Pedophile Ring – Foster Mom Burns 80% of Her Body

One of the lesser known reasons why children are removed from their families is for political reasons. We have previously reported on child kidnappings for political reasons with the North Carolina Randy Davis stories, and the story of Arlan Lee, a Native American former social worker turned whistleblower in South Dakota who had his own kids targeted (video here).

Randy Davis is also Native American, and when he went public and reported alleged corruption with “senators, the NC Commission of Indian Affairs, the Coharie Intra-Tribal Council, and entire departments within Sampson County – including Child Protection Services (CPS)” they allegedly tried to silence him by taking away his daughter. (See: EXCLUSIVE: Corrupt North Carolina Officials Try to Silence Whistleblower Using Child Protection Services)

As we look into the Schaeffer Cox story, we see a new twist to using CPS for political reasons, as the FBI allegedly tried to manipulate the strong paternal bond between parent and child by using CPS to target his child.

Why Did the FBI Target Schaeffer Cox?

There is a public website documenting Schaeffer’s case, with links to videos, court documents, etc.   Some excerpts from freeschaeffer.com:


Schaeffer Cox, a well known 2nd Amendment lobbyist who had won 38% of the vote in a State House election, became the subject of an intense FBI investigation after he angered state and federal authorities by openly accusing them of drug trafficking and child prostitution.


Oil pipeline service company executive, Bill Allen, who had been spared prosecution on multiple counts of sexual abuse of minors in exchange for his 2008 testimony against pro-2nd Amendment Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, was among those implicated. “The State Wide Drug Taskforce supplied children for sex to a number of state and federal officials in exchange for those official’s cooperation in concealing the ongoing illicit drug trafficking activities of the State Wide Drug Taskforce,” Schaeffer Cox said.


Not long after these public statements, the same departments that Schaeffer Cox accused of corruption sent in numerous provocateurs to try to switch his efforts off of exposing corruption and on to violent vigilante-type actions. Schaeffer Cox, who believes in non-aggression and voluntarism, can be heard on multiple undercover recordings telling the provocateurs, “No, I’m going to pull a Ghandi, NOT a Rambo” and “if we turn violent, people will see us as the bad guys.”


In what some have called a deviation from accepted investigative techniques, the FBI responded to Schaeffer Cox’s rejection of their violent proposals by creating a threat to his children that could serve as a motivator.  Working with the Office of Child Services, the FBI filed a child neglect complaint regarding Schaeffer and his wife Marti’s 1 and 1/2 year old son. Because they do not require probable cause, child neglect complaints are an attractive tool for investigators who wish to enter a home, but lack any evidence to support a warrant.


Once Schaeffer Cox was made aware of the “writ of assistance” issued for the seizure of his young son, the FBI dispatched undercover provocateur, Bill Fulton, to again try to convince Schaeffer Cox to go on a shooting spree in response to these new developments. Bill Fulton, acting under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Sandra Klein, pointed out that the child neglect complaint was obviously the corrupt work of Schaeffer Cox’s political adversaries in the government, and urged him to go kill all officials involved.


When Schaeffer Cox and his friend, Les Zerbe, refused Fulton’s violent suggestions a second time, Fulton flew into a rage, held a hunting knife to Les Zerbe’s throat, and told him he would “slit his throat open and bleed him out at his feet” if he and Cox didn’t agree to the proposed mass shooting. Cox and Zerbe refused, and escaped, never to see Fulton again.
 

Suspecting foul play by the FBI and local police, and fearing for their lives from Fulton, Schaeffer Cox and his wife went to the military police station on Ft. Wainwright for help. Officers there advised Schaeffer Cox that federal agents had come into the station and bragged of how they planned to “fix the Schaeffer Cox problem” by “going into his home to take out his kid, then just shoot Schaeffer Cox in the process.” The MP’s gave Schaeffer Cox’s attorney affidavits to this effect and would later testify to the same under oath.


At FBI Special Agent Klein’s direction, Fulton made a third attempt to get Schaeffer Cox to do a mass shooting. Fulton did this by issuing a death threat ultimatum and promising to kill Schaeffer Cox himself if he refused the proposal of violence again.


Fearing for their lives, the Cox family packed up and headed for Canada. But the FBI sent another undercover provocateur, RJ Olson, after them, court documents say. Olson, a self described “drug wholesaler” working under the supervision of FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland, held the whole Cox family, including a 2 year old boy and a 3 week old baby girl, hostage, against their will in the attic for 21 days after sabotaging their vehicle, then using death threats from Fulton and a made up story about a truck driver to keep them from leaving.


The government does not dispute the fact that the actions of the provocateurs working under the FBI’s supervision did in fact meet the legal definition of 1st degree kidnapping,” said Robert John, the Fairbanks attorney who got all related state charges against Cox thrown out.

On March 10th, 2011 Schaeffer Cox was taken from the attic to a deserted industrial lot in Fairbanks where he believed he would meet the “truck driver” Olson had promised. No such truck driver existed. Instead, there was a FBI ambush of out of town agents who did not know Schaeffer Cox was a well respected local political voice with popular support. The Agent’s, who had been instructed to shoot Schaeffer Cox on site if he had a weapon, were not advised by the local FBI case agent of Cox’s repeated statements about being like Ghandi not Rambo.

FBI Special Agent Richard Southerland supplied JR Olson with an unregistered, nontraceable pistol and instructed him to “put it in Schaeffer’s lap then get under the truck so there will be some thick metal between you and him when the shooting starts.” The FBI’s plan was interrupted when the owner of the industrial lot happened upon the scene and started asking questions about why men with masks and machine guns were hiding around the corner.

Schaeffer Cox was arrested and put on trial for “conspiracy against the government.” The prosecution was led by Steve Skrocki and Joseph Botini, the same people that were held in contempt of court for hiding evidence in several related trials of Alaska political personalities. The audio recording of Schaeffer Cox repeatedly rejecting violence were hidden from the jury, but are now being made available to the public by Schaeffer Cox’s supporters via YouTube and other means.

Steve Skrocki, who has publically attacked Schaeffer Cox for his belief in Moral Higher Law, built his case primarily on the testimony of Fulton and Olson. Recently released audio recording and email between Steve Skrocki and his boss, US Attorney Karen Loeffler, now show that Skrocki coached his witnesses to lie, then vouched for those lies in his closing arguments to the jury.

Still others have taken issue with Skrocki’s entire theory of the case. “The importance of this case is significant to the whole of humanity” says Larry Pratt, president of Gun Owners of America. He points out that the prosecution conceded that Cox had no actual plans for violence, but convicted him anyway based on Cox’s belief that “We The People” may someday have to stand down an out of control government. 

Schaeffer Cox, who has been in prison since 2011 agrees. “This amounts to sending people to prison for simply believing in the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment” he says. “If we don’t reverse my conviction, it will set a sweeping new precedent allowing for the wholesale round up of those who have not committed any crimes.”

READ the Rest of the Story HERE

















Victims unprotected as traffickers walk free

by Lisa Bjurwald and Maik Baumgartner

 

BRUSSELS - The top suits in Brussels couldn't be more in agreement: human trafficking is modern-day slavery and needs to be stamped out with force.

Red light district: It's often impossible to get the fear-stricken victims to testify

Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt even made it the surprise topic of his annual Christmas speech. Yet the number of convictions for human trafficking turns out to be shockingly low. And while trafficking is on the rise, the conviction rate is actually declining.

Are slave-traders operating in a state of European impunity?

A sorry example from the German capital: In 2012, Berlin police carried out 680 controls of prostitution milieus in order to identify victims of trafficking. While this led to 64 investigations, a mere two cases resulted in convictions.

In Sweden, it has been illegal to purchase sex since 1999, but internal police reviews admit little is done to enforce the law.

Lack of resources' is the standard police answer across Europe when confronted with meagre results but Swedish police explain in an anti-trafficking paper (2011) that effective counter-trafficking work is not necessarily a matter of resources

A case in point is the Internet. Cyber trafficking (grooming, recruitment, selling of victims) is booming. In a 2013 report, Swedish police even state that Internet is the new red-light district. Yet they have almost no surveillance of online sexual exploitation. And Internet-based research would be an extremely cost-effective means of investigation. 

Many instances of human trafficking end in convictions for procurement  a less serious crime, with a slighter punishment. The fault lies with the courts. They urgently need to be educated on the finer workings of human trafficking, says one frustrated officer in Stockholm. 

"Judges can rule that a case isn't trafficking because the exploited girl had a key to the apartment where she was being kept. In their minds, that means she was free to leave. Trafficking may not be a physical prison, but it is a psychological one, equally impossible to escape," continues the officer.  

It's often impossible to get the fear-stricken victims to testify. Lawyers say witnesses regularly escape during trials. Some are offered money (up to 10,000 euro) in exchange for silence, others are under threat. That's if the case makes it to trial. 

"Investigations are often closed at an early stage. If you lack trust in other humans, you're unlikely to suddenly open up and start revealing sensitive details," says a trauma psychologist specialised in migrant youth

One would think that the witness protection system is particularly well-crafted for trafficking cases. The opposite turns out to be true. In many EU countries, social workers have no right to remain silent in court. Even when they do, pressure is applied.


Stronger witness support


At an international trafficking conference in Berlin last fall, participants revealed that social workers are summoned to court to testify about their clients, a practice that endangers both their own and the victims safety.

 Cecilia MalmstrÃm, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, agrees that a stronger witness support system is needed.

 "Sometimes they're forced to sit in the same court room as the perpetrators, who can lock eyes with them and silently repeat their threats. Girls should be able to testify remotely, and with adequate training the courts will be more competent."

All victims have the right to an unconditional reflection period of at least 30 days before they decide whether to participate in a trial or not, according to the European Council's anti-trafficking convention.

Psychologists suggest at least 3-6 months recuperation from the traumatic experience, which often results in severe health problems such as PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). The convention has been ratified by 40 member states, including Sweden and Germany, yet NGOs all over Europe reveal systematic breaches.

Leading asylum lawyer Karin Gyllenring has investigated the situation in Sweden.

 "I've discovered that the problem isn't that we don't offer long enough periods, but that we don't even offer the minimum 30 days victims are entitled to."

Gyllenring and her law firm are so concerned that they have created a Swedish civil society platform to assist victims, lobby for greater support and strengthen victims' legal rights.

Across the EU, victims are coerced into taking the stand with the threat of not getting their residence permits. It's a cruel practice by the authorities, as a forced return can mean risking their lives. Many victims dare only go half the distance.

"I told the court that I didn't know [her female trafficker], that she had bought me from someone else," admits one West African ex-victim. 

"The truth is that she's a relative, and the one who brought me to Europe in the first place. But had I exposed her, her men could have hurt my family." 

As so many other traffickers, not least female ones, the woman walked free. Somewhere in Central Europe.


From trafficking victim to perpetrator


It has taken months to make contact with a former Nigerian madame and arrange a meeting.

When Joan finally sits down before us, she strikes us as a beautiful woman, with deep, dark eyes and a soft voice. She can't quite keep her fingers still. Her feet keep wiggling, too. But mostly Joan looks directly into our eyes as she tells a rarely heard story: how she went from trafficking victim to perpetrator.

Joan grew up in Nigeria, with patriarchal structures, oppression and violence, and the belief that there are strong supernatural forces at work: Voodoo, exerted by influential, self-appointed priests. Longing for a better life, she was deceived by a local woman and trafficked to Europe while still very young.

One crucial detail set Joan apart from the other slaves: after a while, she realised that her madame had taken a liking to her. Joan seized the opportunity, deciding to be obedient at all times, no matter how gruelling work was.  Soon, she was teaching new girls how the game worked, reporting their progress and private chatter to the madame. She was rewarded with little freedoms, was treated better than the others and got to keep more money, too.  "A game of stick and carrot," she says today, not without bitterness.

Joan's madame was a master manipulator. She was the chief oppressor, threatening her slaves if they dared talk back, but it was the men on her payroll who were ordered to carry out physical punishments. After the beatings, she would comfort the victims, acting as a surrogate mother to the vulnerable girls, desperate for affection.

"I could see what she was doing. But I had already risen, I was benefitting and I wanted to bring back a sense of control over my own destiny," Joan explains.

She continued climbing, using other victims as stepping stones, until finally she was a madame herself. Using contacts of her old madame, she placed an order for new women to be brought in from Nigeria. She would dress them up, she says, and with the help of a man who became her husband kept a tight leash on them. In a final closing of the circle, she recruited a new Joan, a right-hand woman fiercely loyal because of the possibility of climbing the criminal ladder

Today, Joan doesn't want to talk about how much money she earned as a madame. She has spent time in prison for sexual exploitation, but the police were unable to prove all the things she had done. The sentence was slight. She is a free woman now, not yet 40.

Her belief in the powers of voodoo remains strong. She saw it as her duty to fulfill the contract with her madame, as promised to the spirits, and is remarkably proud of having done so. She admits that she is undergoing therapy, to work through my past, and makes a point of distancing herself from the trafficking scene. She doesn't have anything to do with that business anymore, she assures us.  

But whether she is ashamed of the pain she inflicted on innocent women, many of whom are now suffering daily just as she once did, Joan for some reason will not say. 

Driving back to a large European city, young, fresh-looking girls sprout up like flowers on the side of the garbage-strewn road. Who, like Lilian Solomon, hides a deadly disease? Who, like Victoria, carries an unborn child that will prove her salvation? 

The wheel of the modern-day slave trade keeps spinning, constantly fed with new flesh.






This article was first published in Svenska Dagbladet (Sweden) and Spiegel Online (Germany) in Jan/Feb 2014 and is part of series of investigations into human trafficking.The series was made possible by a working grant from journalismfund.eu



Trafficking in human beings for removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy

by The National Rapporteur


National Rapporteur on trafficking in Human Beings and forced commercial surrogacy. In the report, the Rapporteur focuses on current developments in the field of organ donation and the forced removal of organs and  for the first time argues that forced commercial surrogacy could fall within the scope of human trafficking. The report can be downloaded using the link at the bottom of this page.

Organ removal

There are no indications of a high incidence of trafficking in human beings for the removal of organs (sometimes referred to as ‘organ harvesting’) within the Netherlands. Neither do Dutch citizens appear to be involved in this crime abroad often. Nevertheless, the Rapporteur calls for watchfulness: "Considering the continuous severe shortage of organ donors, growing globalisation and interconnectedness as a result of the Internet, we have to be on the alert. Manifestations of trafficking in human beings we are witnessing in other countries, will sooner or later affect us too. For that we have to be prepared. The Rapporteur has called on the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport to take the lead in recording the scale and nature of organ trafficking and organ tourism

The Netherlands are experiencing a shortage of organ donors. Live organ donations are rare, and must be voluntary and non-commercial. Because of the severe shortage of organs, patients seem to be willing to pay for them. There are calls from various quarters for financial incentives for organ donation. A number of points need to be considered in this context. Financial incentives could alleviate the shortage of organs and, hence the chance of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. However, financial incentives for organ donation would also make organ donation a commercial activity and create a market for organs, which would, in itself, carry the risk of human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. That risk could be avoided by offering donors an exemption from health insurance premiums rather than a direct monetary reward

Trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs are not constrained by national borders. It is important for states to try to reach new joint solutions and

where possible, coordinate policies and strategies with respect to organ donation, trafficking in organs and human trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs. 

Forced commercial surrogacy 

In addition to the trade in these ‘classical organs’, a market is also growing for other parts of the body. One such market is the demand for surrogate mothers. Commercial surrogacy is increasingly common, partly as a result of developments like the Internet, the globalisation of society and advances in procreation techniques. For the first time Dutch National Rapporteur Corinne Dettmeijer studied the relationship between forced commercial surrogacy and trafficking in human beings. Forced surrogacy is not explicitly included in the Dutch Criminal Code as a form of trafficking. It can be argued that, under certain circumstances, surrogacy could constitute exploitation in the sense of forced services. An important indication of exploitation would be if other persons than the woman carrying the child, such as an intermediary or a spouse, earn money out of the surrogacy and if the financial risks and health risks are borne entirely or largely by the surrogate mother.

 The Netherlands have strict laws about surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy (receiving payment for carrying someone else's child) is not allowed. National policy is aimed at preventing the spread of commercial surrogacy, and accordingly, behaviour that promotes supply and demand in relation to surrogacy has been made a criminal offense. Surrogacy itself is not a criminal offence. In some other countries, such as the United States, India and Ukraine, commercial surrogacy is allowed.

 Intermediary companies operate in the international ˜baby market"™, bringing together donors, parents, surrogate mothers and fertility clinics and making the legal arrangements. The internet, globalisation and advances in procreation techniques bring services abroad within reach of Dutch couples who wish to become parents through surrogacy. But there is a risk there: the rights of surrogate mothers are not respected in all countries. When it comes to commercial surrogacy, the question is to what extent the surrogate mothers are acting voluntarily. As with trafficking in organs, social determinants such as poverty, debt, a vulnerable social position and illiteracy can force a woman to become a surrogate mother. “No one wants to contribute to the phenomenon that women are being exploited to have children. The Dutch government should inform prospective parents about this risk," says the Dutch National Rapporteur.

 
More information:


Trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal of organs and forced commercial surrogacy (2012) Report | 04-12-2012 | pdf-document, 0.25 MB



Read more: http://patrioteponym.webnode.com/news/trafficking-in-human-beings-for-the-purpose-of-the-removal-of-organs-and-forced-commercial-surrogacy/