June 10, 2009
In observing the outrageous acts of doctors who have turned 13-year-old Daniel Hauser and his mom into “fugitives from the law” over their refusal to submit to toxic chemotherapy treatments, I began to wonder whether existing U.S. law covers the crimes being committed against the Hauser family. It turns out the U.S. PATRIOT ACT already defines these cancer doctors and Child Protective Services zealots as “terrorists.”
What is a terrorist? A domestic terrorist is a person who engages in illegal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and which are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population (among other things).
So let’s examine how this might apply to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser:
• Chemotherapy is dangerous to human life. There’s no question whatsoever about that. Even the cancer doctors will tell you chemotherapy is poison.
• The fugitive manhunt for the Hauser family, along with the threat of arrest from Child Protective Services, was part of a campaign to intimidate or coerce a civilian population into bowing to conventional cancer treatments (a political and financial aim).
• The kidnapping of Daniel Hauser by state authorities is a violation of United States law, not to mention the 4th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
So we actually have all three elements here: Danger to human life, intimidation of a civilian population and the violation of law.
That makes this assault on the Hauser family an act of domestic terrorism!
So why aren’t the cancer doctors and CPS kidnappers being arrested and shipped off to Gitmo for interrogation? I’ll tell you why: Because in a police state, terrorism is really defined as anyone who acts against the State. Those who work for the State while engaging in acts of terrorism are exempt from terrorism laws.
The way these things work is that state authorities fabricate claims that “children are in danger” and then they use that as justification to firebomb a compound, or kidnap a teenage boy, or arrest the parents, or do whatever they wish to do.
They raid Scientology offices, or the Nemenhah Native American group (http://www.nemenhah.org), or home Bible study groups (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index….) or any other group they can target and label as being outside the mainstream. In effect, they criminalize nonconformity, then they use the excuse that children are harmed by such nonconformities as a justification for criminalizing anyone who resists.
And yet I would argue that conformity is more harmful to children than living an “alternative” lifestyle. Conformity means feeding your children hot dogs, injecting them with over a hundred vaccines by the age of six (not a hundred individual shots, but a hundred vaccines combined into far fewer shots), exposing them to thousands of hours of television violence, taking psychiatric drugs and engaging in other destructive acts that ultimately harm children.
Healthy child rearing is, by definition, alternative in nature. Because most children (mainstream children) are not anywhere close to healthy. The truly healthy children are those raised by parents who reject mainstream junk foods (and medicine) and, instead, raise their children on real, unprocessed food made by Mother Nature.