All Fire Signs ARIES 1st November video one

Shout out!

I just want to say Thank You and a big Shout Out to my viewer's in Russia. Please do not hesitate to leave your comments below my posts so I can get a clear view of what you are up against yourselves and perhaps we can help one another as United Nations should. Thanks again and God Bless.

Also a big Shout out to my USA viewers which is currently exceeding a whopping 2500, France 292, India 93, Germany 73, Russia 52, Poland 45, Spain 17, Nicaragua 13, Bahrain 7, Ghana 7,

Thank you my 1 viewer in Cambodia and Thailand. I understand you are just 1% of a very small nation but it all started with one person's ambition to view this world as a more peaceful one to enact a change for the greater good. So please pass these ideas on to all you know and trust. Word of mouth goes a very long way and triggers people to take action in what they believe in. Have faith that we all someday will be treated as equals and learn to stand up for eachother and live in peace in the near future. 

National Human Rights Lyrics By B onnie

I am not EVER giving up on you so please do not give up on me. I need all ya'll support to make this happen. So please represent nationwide. Showing our love and peace for all.

WE ARE ALL BORN
FREE AND EQUAL
WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN
THOUGHTS AND IDEAS
BUT WE SHOULD BE TREATED EQUAL

DON'T DISCRIMINATE
WHATEVER OUR DIFFERENCES ARE
WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT AND TO LIFE
AND TO LIVE IN FREEDOM

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

NO SLAVERY, NO TORTURE
YOU HAVE RIGHTS NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO
AND NO UNFAIR DETAINMENT
THE LAW IS THE SAME
FOR EVERYONE
IT MUST TREAT US ALL FAIRLY


NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS
ARE PROTECTED BY LAW
THE PEOPLE WHO TRY US SHOULD NOT LET ANYONE
TELL THEM WHAT TO DO.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRAIL
INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY
WHEN WE SAY WE DID A BAD THING
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO SHOW IT'S NOT TRUE.


NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
AND FREEDOM TO MOVE
NOBODY SHOULD TRY TO HARM YOUR GOOD NAME
WE CAN TRAVEL WHEN WE CHOOSE

WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO SEEK
A SAFE PLACE TO LIVE OUR LIVES
WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO A NATIONALITY


NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY
AND THE RIGHT TO OWN OUR OWN THINGS
MEN AND WOMEN ARE TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS
WHEN THE ARE MARRIED AND OR SEPERATED.

WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE
IN WHAT WE WANT TO BELIEVE
TO HAVE A RELIGION
OR CHANGE IT IF WE PLEASE


NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

FREEDOM OF SPEECH
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
TO DEFEND OUR RIGHTS

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY
TO CHOOSE OUR OWN LEADERS
WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY
AND TRADE UNIONS


NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
AFFORDABLE MEDICINE, AFFORDABLE EDUCATION
AND AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
WE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH OF MONEY
LEFT OVER TO LIVE ON
AND MEDICAL HELP WHEN WE GET ILL OR OLD

EVERY GROWN UP
HAS THE RIGHT TO WORK
GET PAID A FARE WAGE FOR THEIR WORK
AND TO JOIN A TRADE UNION

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REST
FROM WORK AND TO RELAX
TO HAVE A GOOD LIFE AND PLAY
WITH FOOD AND SHELTER FOR ALL

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS

WE ALL HAVE A RIGHT
TO AN EDUCATION
TO PROTECT OUR OWN IDEAS
WITH A SPECIAL LAW CALLED COPYRIGHT

WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBLY
AND DUTY TO OTHER PEOPLE
TO PROTECT AND ENJOY OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS FOR A FAIR AND FREE WORLD.

NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
TO LIVE IN SAFETY AND FREEDOM
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF
OUR HUMAN RIGHTS


NO ONE CAN TAKE AWAY YOUR
HUMAN RIGHTS

WE CAN PROTECT
OUR OWN ARTISTIC CREATIONS
TO ENJOY THE GOOD THINGS THAT, THAT ART, SCIENCE, AND LEARNING...... BRING.

The Parental Rights Amendment

Please review all current details online at https://parentalrights.org/amendment

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

Digging Deeper

SUMMARY: Parental Rights, currently recognized as implied rights, will become specifically enumerated in the text of the Constitution.

"The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children..."

In the 1925 decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a compulsory attendance act that required all parents to send their students to public schools, instead of private or religious schools. The court concluded that the act was unconstitutional because it "unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."

"...is a fundamental right."

In 2000, the Supreme Court cited a long train of previous cases which showed that the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children is a fundamental right. The following passage, taken from Troxel v. Granville, highlights the rich history of this fundamental right:

In subsequent cases also, we have recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) ("It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children 'come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements'" (citation omitted)); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ("The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition"); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 549, 54 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978) ("We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected"); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979) ( "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course"); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (discussing "[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child"); Glucksberg, supra, at 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258 ("In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the 'liberty' specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ ... to direct the education and upbringing of one's children" (citing Meyer and Pierce)). In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. (emphasis added)

SECTION 2
The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose, as an alternative to public education, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child.

Digging Deeper

SUMMARY: Parents have a right to make reasonable choices for their child in public schools, such as opting their child out of classes the parents find objectionable. It does not give parents any power to dictate curriculum or other choices by the school for the student body at large.

In 2005 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a parent's fundamental right to direct their child's education ends at the threshold of the school door (Fields v. Palmdale,427 F3d 1197, 2005). This section will return to parents the right to make reasonable decisions for their child, even in the public schools. It does not include any right to make decisions for others' children or the school as a whole. However, it sets a low standard that parents need to reach to make decisions for their own student. To override this right, it would not be enough to show that, for instance, the request is not the best for the student or the school. The government would have to show that a parent's request was unreasonable.

The "reasonableness standard" is the lowest standard in constitutional law, and therefore the easiest test for parents to meet.

SECTION 3
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served

Digging Deeper

SUMMARY: While parental rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.

". . . demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person. . ."

Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government's case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged.

In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must "demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law 'to the person'--the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened."Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

". . . of the highest order and not otherwise served."

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that "the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests"), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end"), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): "To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance 'interests of the highest order' and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests." In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.

SECTION 4
The parental rights guaranteed by this article shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability.

Digging Deeper

SUMMARY: Discrimination against persons with disabilities or parents whose children have disabilities is prohibited.

"...shall not be denied or abridged on account of disability."

This language follows the structure of existing constitutional prohibitions against denying the right to vote on the basis of race (Amendment 15), sex (Amendment 19), the paying of a poll tax (Amendment 24), and age (Amendment 26). It seeks to guarantee to persons with disabilities the same legal presumption of parental fitness that is extended to every other parent.

Read more about parental rights for parents with disabilities.

SECTION 5
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

Digging Deeper

SUMMARY: The amendment will not apply in cases where a parent's action or decision would end life.

Section Five stipulates that the Amendment will not apply to life-ending decisions. Current law will continue to control in that rare instance. This exclusion was a necessity to avoid the appearance that the PRA would affect the abortion issue either way, which would make its passage a political impossibility.

Help Pass the Amendment!

1. Sign up

so we can send you updates and critical alerts when we need you to contact congress.

GO TO THIS WEBSITE TO SIGN UP....

www.https://Parentalrights.org/amendment

Children of God

BRIGHT A DAY!

I really wish I was able to be with you guy's in Washington DC right now. Kudos to all that were able to go. Just doing the next best thing and honoring my first amendment and being an activist. Be part of the movement too. Call your state representative and speak your peace and/or wear white for the next couple day's to support the Parental Civil Rights Movement.

HELP ME FIND MY CHILDREN !!!

September. 14, 2017

I live in Tampa FL currently and my kid's reside in Pinellas County FL. You may not be aware but recently we had Hurricane Irma threat to our area. Luckily it was not as bad as it was expected to be. The Pinellas County area was evacuated and my son's and their father left the State of Florida on September 10, 2017. Since that day I have not heard from them. I am 😞 worried.

THIS IS WHAT MY HUSBAND AND KID'S LOOK LIKE...

I called the Pinellas County Sheriffs Office (PCSO) to conduct a well check to see if my children were safe. The deputy stated that it appears that everyone has evacuated the premises and that my husbands car was still in the parking lot. I asked the deputy if he could please write a report concerning my call and what he found. The deputy seemed very bothered by my request since he mentioned that he has many of these calls. I asked him kindly to do so that way I can bring a copy of his report to court on September 22, 2017 to provide proof of concern about the welfare of my children.

LAST TEXT MESSAGE FROM MY HUSBAND SEPTEMBER 10, 2017

The last time I heard from them was four day's ago and I got a text message that they were in Alabama. He was driving a minivan. It appears that his phone may be dead. It goes straight to voicemail and he is not responding to any of my text's.  What am I supposed to do? I love my boys and I need to know if they are alive or dead.

IF ANYBODY HAPPENS TO SEE THESE TWO CHILDREN PLEASE NOTIFY ME (BONNIE) RIGHT AWAY AT 7275579921. I NEED TO KNOW IF THESE TWO BOY'S ARE SAFE.    

ISAIAH 11 YEARS OLD

 LIAM 4 YEARS OLD