Steve's Retraction Page
What is Steve's Retraction Page?
February 23rd, 2023 | by Diego Rodriguez
A random commenter who calls himself, "Steve" has tried to claim that I (Diego Rodriguez) have lied about the Baby Cyrus case. I challenged him to demonstrate one single, solitary, LIE I have published about Baby Cyrus. And, if he could do so, I promised to publish a retraction to it on this website.
Of course, Steve was completely unable to point out any LIE that I have published regarding the Baby Cyrus case, but has tried to claim that it was a lie to call Baby Cyrus's kidnapping a "kidnapping."
Since Steve's useless attempt to point out LIES on our part is such an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the folly of ideological leftists, I have dedicated this page to using Steve's arguments as a tool to highlight the immorality of the government subsidized child trafficking that we all saw take place in the case of Baby Cyrus.
Below you can see the original text of Steve's comments along with my response. If and when Steve tries to point out any other "lies" I will post them below.
A random commenter who calls himself, "Steve" has tried to claim that I (Diego Rodriguez) have lied about the Baby Cyrus case. I challenged him to demonstrate one single, solitary, LIE I have published about Baby Cyrus. And, if he could do so, I promised to publish a retraction to it on this website.
Of course, Steve was completely unable to point out any LIE that I have published regarding the Baby Cyrus case, but has tried to claim that it was a lie to call Baby Cyrus's kidnapping a "kidnapping."
Since Steve's useless attempt to point out LIES on our part is such an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the folly of ideological leftists, I have dedicated this page to using Steve's arguments as a tool to highlight the immorality of the government subsidized child trafficking that we all saw take place in the case of Baby Cyrus.
Below you can see the original text of Steve's comments along with my response. If and when Steve tries to point out any other "lies" I will post them below.
RESPONSE 1 - To Steve's claim that Baby Cyrus was not a "kidnapping."
Steve, Baby Cyrus “kidnapping” was absolutely “kidnapping” and also a definitive form of child trafficking. You see, Mr. Steve, in order for a child to legally be taken into “protective custody,” there has to be actual legal evidence to give “authorities” a genuine legal reason to take a child into “protective custody.” The legal standard that must be met is called “imminent danger” in the State of Idaho.
A child needs to be shown to be in “imminent danger,” meaning that the child is about to die BECAUSE of the parents. So not only must the child be shown to be in “imminent danger,” but evidence must exist that shows that the child’s parents are the ones who caused the child to be in “imminent danger.”
It has already been demonstrated multiple times on this website and in public that Baby Cyrus was never in “imminent danger,” and that ZERO EVIDENCE was provided to try to make the case that Baby Cyrus was in "imminent danger." In fact, the published evidence shows that the IDHW admitted he was not in imminent danger, that the Meridian Police Department knew he was not in imminent danger, and that the only doctor who viewed Baby Cyrus the night he was kidnapped (from St. Luke's hospital by the way) stated on record that he was a perfectly “healthy baby” and that there were no “acute life threats noted.”
So YES, you are wrong. NO, Baby Cyrus was not legally taken into “protective custody.” And since the forceful taking of Baby Cyrus was illegal and done without evidence then it is the pure, raw, unadulterated definition of KIDNAPPING, Steve. And additionally, since the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare got paid by the Federal Government by taking Baby Cyrus, and since St. Luke’s hospital also received compensation as a result of Baby Cyrus’s kidnapping, then the kidnapping is also identifiable as CHILD TRAFFICKING which is defined as kidnapping for profit.
A child needs to be shown to be in “imminent danger,” meaning that the child is about to die BECAUSE of the parents. So not only must the child be shown to be in “imminent danger,” but evidence must exist that shows that the child’s parents are the ones who caused the child to be in “imminent danger.”
It has already been demonstrated multiple times on this website and in public that Baby Cyrus was never in “imminent danger,” and that ZERO EVIDENCE was provided to try to make the case that Baby Cyrus was in "imminent danger." In fact, the published evidence shows that the IDHW admitted he was not in imminent danger, that the Meridian Police Department knew he was not in imminent danger, and that the only doctor who viewed Baby Cyrus the night he was kidnapped (from St. Luke's hospital by the way) stated on record that he was a perfectly “healthy baby” and that there were no “acute life threats noted.”
So YES, you are wrong. NO, Baby Cyrus was not legally taken into “protective custody.” And since the forceful taking of Baby Cyrus was illegal and done without evidence then it is the pure, raw, unadulterated definition of KIDNAPPING, Steve. And additionally, since the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare got paid by the Federal Government by taking Baby Cyrus, and since St. Luke’s hospital also received compensation as a result of Baby Cyrus’s kidnapping, then the kidnapping is also identifiable as CHILD TRAFFICKING which is defined as kidnapping for profit.
Steve's Response 2:
Really, you think educated people who have done their homework can't think for themselves? That's rich.....LOL
It was NOT a kidnapping.....if it was a kidnapping then there would be charges filed against those who did the kidnapping. Just because your kids are shitty parents who can't care for their kids had their child taken away for medical reasons says a lot. Its not trafficking either, they weren't getting any benefit out of putting this kid into protective custody. You're trying to get people to see your warped view of the law, and you're not a lawyer, that much is clear. Your refusal to provide documents requested by the courts goes to show that you have something to hide. Imminent danger is not the only requirement for protective services....you might try doing your own research instead of your theories. Neglect is a reason for protective custody, which this was.
Try relying on the facts, not your opinions. Still waiting on that retraction.......I'm sure you'll come up with another crap reason why I'm wrong
Really, you think educated people who have done their homework can't think for themselves? That's rich.....LOL
It was NOT a kidnapping.....if it was a kidnapping then there would be charges filed against those who did the kidnapping. Just because your kids are shitty parents who can't care for their kids had their child taken away for medical reasons says a lot. Its not trafficking either, they weren't getting any benefit out of putting this kid into protective custody. You're trying to get people to see your warped view of the law, and you're not a lawyer, that much is clear. Your refusal to provide documents requested by the courts goes to show that you have something to hide. Imminent danger is not the only requirement for protective services....you might try doing your own research instead of your theories. Neglect is a reason for protective custody, which this was.
Try relying on the facts, not your opinions. Still waiting on that retraction.......I'm sure you'll come up with another crap reason why I'm wrong
RESPONSE 2 - Steve still claims that Baby Cyrus was not a "kidnapping."
The Child Protective Act of Idaho § 16-608 plainly states that a child may only be taken in an "Emergency Removal…only where the child is endangered in his surroundings and prompt removal is necessary to prevent serious physical or mental injury to the child or where the child is an abandoned child…"
That is not a theory, that is the Idaho State Statue. Click on the link and read it for yourself since you are so educated and have done your homework.
That is not a theory, that is the Idaho State Statue. Click on the link and read it for yourself since you are so educated and have done your homework.
If you've done so much homework then why have you not responded to the following 5 facts:
1. The Meridian Police Department knew and were told by St. Luke's Hospital that Baby Cyrus was "healthy" and was not in imminent danger.
2. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare fully knew that Baby Cyrus was not in imminent danger and planned on immediately putting him into Foster Care the night he was taken. Children in a medical emergency are not put into foster care, now are they, Steve?
3. St. Luke's hospital had the only doctor who reviewed Baby Cyrus and her diagnosis was that he was a "healthy baby," and that there were "no acute life threats noted." St. Luke's own doctor diagnosed Baby Cyrus as NOT being in "imminent danger."
4. The Meridian Police Department did not provide a single shred of evidence to anybody at anytime that Baby Cyrus was in "imminent danger." And of course, had they cared at all about Baby Cyrus they would have let Marissa (Baby Cyrus's mom) accompany Baby Cyrus to the hospital.
5. It is a matter of pubic fact and public record that both the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare got paid directly for Baby Cyrus's kidnapping and St. Luke's Hospital likewise received compensation as a result of his kidnapping.
These are all facts, Steve. FACTS. Not opinions. Yet, like all ideological leftists you never respond to facts, you just spew out lies and emotional sewage. I dare you to try and defend the 5 facts above. Go for it.
1. The Meridian Police Department knew and were told by St. Luke's Hospital that Baby Cyrus was "healthy" and was not in imminent danger.
2. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare fully knew that Baby Cyrus was not in imminent danger and planned on immediately putting him into Foster Care the night he was taken. Children in a medical emergency are not put into foster care, now are they, Steve?
3. St. Luke's hospital had the only doctor who reviewed Baby Cyrus and her diagnosis was that he was a "healthy baby," and that there were "no acute life threats noted." St. Luke's own doctor diagnosed Baby Cyrus as NOT being in "imminent danger."
4. The Meridian Police Department did not provide a single shred of evidence to anybody at anytime that Baby Cyrus was in "imminent danger." And of course, had they cared at all about Baby Cyrus they would have let Marissa (Baby Cyrus's mom) accompany Baby Cyrus to the hospital.
5. It is a matter of pubic fact and public record that both the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare got paid directly for Baby Cyrus's kidnapping and St. Luke's Hospital likewise received compensation as a result of his kidnapping.
These are all facts, Steve. FACTS. Not opinions. Yet, like all ideological leftists you never respond to facts, you just spew out lies and emotional sewage. I dare you to try and defend the 5 facts above. Go for it.
Baby Cyrus Quick Links:
Isaiah 44:28 "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure."
Isaiah 45:1-3 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight…that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel."
Isaiah 45:1-3 "Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings…I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight…that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel."
SITE SECURED BY:
