Alright, here we go, get ready because I am FIRED up! I just read a New York Post article by Naomi Schaefer Riley titled Stop Putting PC Ideology Over the Needs of Foster Kids and I couldn’t believe what I read. It has nothing to do with Ms. Schaefer Riley, she did an excellent job on this opinion piece, what has got me so upset is the liberal agenda pushing within certain agencies that she exposed in the article. In the article she discusses the case of Bill Johnson who “is suing Michigan over the rule, which will bar him from carrying a gun if he wants to act as a foster parent to his own grandson...Johnson is a former Marine and longtime hunter.” He has a permit to carry a firearm and the state (Michigan) is basically telling him that he must choose between fostering his grandson or his gun. For me, if push came to shove, I would of course begrudgingly (and only temporarily) say goodbye to my firearm, but that kind of push should NEVER be able to shove me right out of my second amendment rights - nor should it shove Johnson out of his.
 Image retrieved from: https://camerafraud.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/patriot-act.jpg | Sadly that is exactly what is happening, as Schaefer Riley reports Mr. Johnson reflecting “child-services workers “told me flat out, ‘You are going to have to give up some constitutional rights here if you want to keep that boy.’ ”” What, you're kidding me, right? How can this even be an issue? So you have a blood relative willing and ready to take in a child so that he does not need to ever even enter the system and you are going to say no because the relative is owns guns - a right given to him by the United States Constitution mind you - what type of asinine backwards thinking is that? This type of liberal agenda promotion is exactly what is wrong with our country today! |
am going to let you all in on a little secret: My husband and I couldn’t have children of our own and after 8 years of trying decided to look into adoption. We thought about babies and private adoptions, but the cost was too high and those are the kiddos that are always wanted first, we then switched our focus to adopting from the foster care system and decided that if we are to move forward we would want to open our home to an older child, one who is less likely to be a “hot commodity” on the adoption market like the infants are. The restriction of gun ownership in relation to eligibility considerations would, obviously, seriously impede our progress in the process. Luckily our state, which is most definitely blue, has not gone to such drastic measures as to say “give up your constitutional rights or you won’t be considered as acceptable potential adoptive parents.” We have started the application process in our state and have made it clear to CFS (Children and Family Services) caseworker that we not only own guns but we also own a gun shop. After speaking with her at length about our profession she made it clear that this would not be an issue as long as the guns we owned at home were locked and secured. We are big believers in gun safety anyway (see the blog entry: 4 Questions You Should Ask Yourself BEFORE Buying Your First Firearm: Part 4 “How and where should I store my new firearm?”) so that was not a problem, but we also believe that we can both own guns AND be good parents and are are not interested in government coming in and telling us otherwise (see blog entry: Stop "Recklessly Endangering" My Rights: Sub HB 1122 and its Repercussions) and our caseworker told us “we don’t want to”.
| According to the 2014 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System Report a child enters the foster care system in the United States every 2 minutes - that’s a lot of kids who need to be cared for and, obviously, there are some things which should be taken into consideration when assessing a family’s suitability for adoption and foster care. I agree with Schaefer Riley’s statement that when evaluating a family's eligibility to serve as foster parents there are three things that should come into play: “Will this family provide a safe, stable and loving environment for a child in need?” |  Image retrieved from: https://www.hillside.com/services/foster-care/ |
- Safety - can the foster parents provide a home that is sturdy, sound, and warm, will the children be free from negative influences and influencers, is the home environment free from predators, violence, and drugs?
- Stability - can the foster parents provide a home that is stable in terms of day-to-day activities and schedules, income, proper and adequate nutrition, availability of health care, access to decent education, and the furnishing a functional family environment?
- Love - even the Bible chimes in that the greatest gift from God is LOVE - can the foster parents provide a home where love and support is expressed freely, a place where patience and understanding of troubled pasts is exercised on a daily basis, an environment of acceptance, and (for us at least) a place where the Lord is at the center of the home.
 | With these key factors in mind government agencies should be able move forward finding homes for those children who need them most. There are so many wonderful people, who also just happen to be gun owners, that could offer the three key factors with more to spare. Why should we rob children of the opportunity to become a part of these amazing families. To be so short sighted and so concerned with a gun control agenda shows that the only thing these legislators (the one’s proposing unconstitutional restrictions like this) are interested in saving is their own policies and positions. They are not interested in children’s safety, if they were they would not ever even consider placing them in the system if there were other options (especially blood relations) available - nope, their focus is squarely centered on their “neo-socialist” paradigm (damn liberals)! |
RSS Feed
