MovieChat Forums > Kidnapped for Christ (2014) Discussion > David interviewed April 2014

David interviewed April 2014


http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/search?vendor=ez&qu=david+wernsman
He says his parents have come to grips with his being gay and that they feel very guilty for what they put him through. They should!

reply

Thanks for this link, cameo-kirby. This three-part interview is extremely interesting and a tremendous follow-up to this film. Needless to say the film itself is extremely unsettling and horrifying. So wretched to see that being gay is still considered a crime. Sending your own child away like this should be considered a criminal act.

reply

This facility is horrible, and the parents who were part of this ought to be horsewhipped.
Another nail in the coffin of Christianity.
$72,000 a year for a school run in the Third World? Where is the money?

reply

David needs to man the F up and take his dad out back and beat him with a bat till an ambulance arrives or he's dead, whichever.
Once finished with that, he needs to take a rope, put it around his mother's neck, tie it to his car, and drive through boy's town.

Anything less would be uncivilized. All those parents deserve this.

reply

That would only land him in jail.
He could however send his dad to jail: he seems to have a solid support group with reliable witnesses of the fact that he was kidnapped and held prisoner abroad even when he mas no longer a minor.

reply

No he could NOT send his dad to jail. The US Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that parents in the USA have this 'right' to abuse their children.

The USA follows the old Ancient Roman principle that stated the child was the possession of the parents (and the parents could even legally put their child to death without legal penalty). This is fundamentally different from all other First World nations- and explains why the USA has REFUSED to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the child.

The ONLY reason these schools are less common in the USA is because campaigners were stirring up unwanted publicity about the sick laws in the USA- and there was a very real possibility that public pressure would have forced a change in the law- something the rulers of the USA wanted to avoid at all costs.

The IRONY is that these US run schools are almost ALWAYS illegal in the servile nation in which they are located, because most of the US slave nations have themselves made the abuse of children illegal, including school 'corporal punishment'. But the US government places unbearable pressure on the leaders of these nations to turn a 'blind-eye' to the activities of US Christian zionists.

As for holding the kid captive AFTER 17- well in the USA the Supreme Court has ruled that EIGHTEEN counts as under 18 in a school context (18 year old adults forcibly beaten at school have been denied the right to sue the school by the US Supreme Court). Worse, the age of majority in these servile nations is frequently 21, so the US embassy informs the Christian zionists running the school that they keep the person prisoner till 21 under 'local' laws.

Why are Americans SO THICK, they always thick the abusers are breaking US law? The rest of the world has no problem understanding the US legal system, including the common practise of US authorities granting TOTAL IMMUNITY from prosecution to entities considered useful for their sheeple control activities. The CPS in most US states, for instance, will prosecute a parent for mild acts of corporal punishment, yet will roll around with laughter at the suggestion they should prosecute schools for beating the kids black and blue. One law for the masters, another for the slaves.

I'll never forget the recent case of that famous American 'black' musician murdered by his Dad, only for the court to rule that parents have the 'rights' to murder their adult children under the most tenuous of excuses- just like the elders of Ancient Rome said.

reply

Careful! You might fall off your soapbox.

Lighten up Elroy.

Cheers

reply

Do you really believe that Marvin Gay Sr. was told by the courts it was ok to murder his son?
Since Sr. was covered in bruises and Jr. had drugs in his system (cocaine and angel dust) it was basically theorized that Jr attacked (and that did happen) Sr.
He received six yr suspended sentence and five yrs of probation after pleading no contest to manslaughter. First degree murder charges were dropped after doctors discovered Sr had a brain tumor (which was benign and was removed).

For the rest of your post, to be honest, I didn't fully read as I'm not sure if you are a troll or not. And alas, I'll never know as I can already guess that your response (if there was one) would be rude and condescending. It's hard to read past that parents can murder their children legally. So I'm putting you on ignore. Please feel free to do likewise.

reply

Hey look Zan, I can cut and paste and blanket post this forum as well as you can.

Myself said elsewhere

zan, you're just as whacked out as the parents and the adults who run that camp. The far left can be just and messed up and fascists as the far right.

reply