A link containing more information would be useful, especially if it shares both sides of the story. As best as I can glean, the courts have already taken two children away for neglect or abuse. When a child was born into the situation, the State took preemptive action.
Without further information I don't want to pass judgment on whether taking the child was appropriate. However, so far, I don't see anything to justify any assumption that an Oathkeeper is being targeted.
Gentlemen;
I know this is off topic (somewhat since this is General Discussion), but please help me out here if you will. The embedded video at the top of the link supplied by the OP entitled, "Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey", has a piece of music throughout it, starting around 38 seconds in that is driving me nuts. I am familiar with this music and remember it in a movie, or a series, but I cannot for the life of me come up with a name. Can anyone help me out with this because it is make my wife and I crazy trying to figure it out.
Thanks much.
I read that already. I still see no evidence that "the Department of Homeland Security [is] targeting Oath Keepers," as the link in the OP indicates. The mention of the parent's membership and ownership of weapons, among many other contentions, does not support the conclusion in the title of the linked article at all.
Does anyone have any real, unbiased information on this story?
I am not sure what role exactly the Department of Homeland Security plays in this type of thing. The document says State of New Hampshire Concord Family Division. So you may be right about the title. I would have to do more research.
However the document states his affiliation with a militia (Oath Keepers is not a militia) known as the “Oath Keepers” as one of the reasons that his child was taken away. If it we’re not one of the reasons why would it be worth mentioning? Stating Oath Keepers as one of the reasons is an attack on Oath Keepers.
Focusing in on one of the reasons, even one as flawed as this one, and implying the it is THE reason is disingenuous. The ultimate reason cited in the document is that the other children were taken away for neglect/abuse. If it were indeed established that the other children were abused (to the point where they needed to be reasonably taken away), then I expect the court to also take away any newborn placed into such a dangerous situation.
It could turn out that even taking away the other children was inappropriate. I don't know! We are getting one decidedly biased side of the story. I think we should hear the facts (or both biased sides) before jumping to conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of posters here are predisposed to jump to conclusions that favor their world-view.
I despise bigotry, even bigotry from folks with a similar world-view to mine.
Let's get the whole story. Then, pass judgment.
Focusing in on one of the reasons, even one as flawed as this one, and implying the it is THE reason is disingenuous. The ultimate reason cited in the document is that the other children were taken away for neglect/abuse. If it were indeed established that the other children were abused (to the point where they needed to be reasonably taken away), then I expect the court to also take away any newborn placed into such a dangerous situation.
It could turn out that even taking away the other children was inappropriate. I don't know! We are getting one decidedly biased side of the story. I think we should hear the facts (or both biased sides) before jumping to conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of posters here are predisposed to jump to conclusions that favor their world-view.
I despise bigotry, even bigotry from folks with a similar world-view to mine.
Let's get the whole story. Then, pass judgment.
So, you did not read the memo from DHS ?? That returning vets could be Domestic Terrorist's ? that people that fly the Gadsden Flag are likely domestic terrorist's or Militia or both. Dude -> open your eyes, removeth head from sand.
I am not focusing on this one reason because I think that it should exempt them. I don't know all of the details. There are not very many details out at all right now that I know of. For all that I know they are abusive parents. One thing I do know is that it was stated on what looks like an official document that one of the reasons that there child was taken away is because he is affiliated with a militia known as the “Oath Keepers”. That is the point that I am trying make. They are attacking the Oath Keepers and making false accusations about them.
I do understand where you are comming from. It is wise to know all of the facts before jumping to conclusions. It is easy to think with emotions. What I am pointing out is fact though based on what the document says.