New Born Baby Taken from Parents

I heard about this, though I have not delved deeply into the story. But here's a little twist.

Kidnapping is considered a violent felony and as such, may be responded to with deadly force. So I wonder how the DSS would feel if met with a fully armed man, pointing a gun in their face, and telling them they just had a few seconds to exit his presence without his newborn child?

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

SouthernBoy said:

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.

Click to expand...

It just came to me. This is the theme song for Last of the Mohicans. A beautiful piece of music.

A very convoluted and involved story - one that evokes strong emotional reaction in some.

Far too little verifiable data for this poster to make any informed speculation into the cause/reason for the action, but there are flags if you read carefully enough.

What I do question is the appropriateness of this on OCDO. - yes I know that there was reference to owning guns, but that does not seem to be the central issue by any means.

Here are some videos and interviews about this story by the New Hampshire Liberty Activist community.

OTN: Oath Keepers Cited as Justification for Government Infant Kidnapping (1/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lq5sr3hthk&feature=sub

Ridley Report: Oath Keeper baby stolen? An update.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBDrA74lM3k

If the facts of this case are as I suspect, then my blood will boil, but I will wait until Government officials fail to justify their actions, before I boil over.

So far, every report is from some group with a similar axe to grind. Any independent facts, or any accounts from someone with the opposite axe?

eye95 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

5o56x45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Glock34 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot to wear my tinfoil, so they sent mind-control rays at me that kept me from linking the two stories and seeing the conspiracy between DHS and family protection in Vermont.

*insert twilight zone music here*

That being said, I hate the DHS memo. I hate the mindset that it represents, that the government controls us, and that any organization that opposes that idea is an enemy of the state.

On the topic of this thread: Is there any unbiased reporting of this event from which we can glean the facts? Or, second best, articles biased from the other POV, so we can achieve some balance?

5o56x45 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, how about we wait for these facts before we get threads posted with attachments with silly headlines implying that Homeland Security is conspiring with a child protection agency to unlawfully take an Oath Keepers' child.

Oath Keepers Statement

Maybe this site is more appropriate. It is Oath Keepers Response to all of this. I think that it will be updated as the whole thing progresses. I am sure that they will be very careful to make accurate statements in regards to this issue.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10...ts-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/

Feel free to post anything that you might find that can balance out the issue.

You are posting nothing but bias. That is irresponsible.

BTW, the first paragraph recognizes that the membership is not THE reason for taking the child, and the third paragraph implies that it is (in the face of a source document saying it is not.

Folks, until someone gets the whole story out, I would recommend taking a cautious approach to this story, and not let yourselves get crazy fired-up over something that could turn out to be an unresearched and bigoted sentence or two in an official document that will later, in recognition of its absolute foolishness, be removed.

We have far too many real problems with significant rights violations to allow us to be seen as wackos for worrying about a pipe leaking in one of the bathrooms of the Titanic.

Oh, and barring some balance or some facts being posted here, I'll just move on. I've already pointed out the silliness of the concern being expressed here based on so little hard information.

BTW, mods, shouldn't this post be in the Social Lounge? This ain't about OC.

There is much more to the story

This story really ruined my day earlier this week when I first read it. Then I started to learn some other things that made it not so bad.

The document 5o56x45 posted shows that there were other reasons for removing the children, including a trial to remove the mother's parental rights toward two previous children (see point 5 in the document posted above). So right there we can see that the Oathkeeper allegation is something additional, and not the sole reason for removing the infant from the parents' custody. They might as well have said "Plus they can't cook meatloaf worth a damn" at the end of the document, for all the good the Oathkeepers allegation does them. I suspect that was included either out of ignorance or to help persuade a particular judge or jury that to accept the motion to take the children away.

I don't like children being taken away for anything other than a serious and immediate threat to the child, but this is not as bad as it seems on the face of it. No, "they" are not taking children away from people associated with groups "they" don't like. At least not yet, if ever. There do seem to be some problems with this case, and maybe DCYF needs to review its procedures, but I don't think the problems are in the realm of "doom has come" or "they're taking kids away for nothing".

Having said all that, what would I do if they came to the hospital and tried to take away MY newborn, for any reason? I really don't know, but I'd damn sure consider it kidnapping no matter what kind of paperwork or laws or "authority" they wave at me.

A rational response and a breath of fresh air.