Thread: What? Govt Agents Seize Oath Keeper's New Born From Hospital

Originally Posted by marquis

Originally Posted by Newmexican

The state should not have named the Oathkeepers as a militia group and named the organization in the affidavit as a reason in a custody case. I believe it is slanderous to the rest of the people in the organization and could be later used to set precedent.

Maybe they shouldn't have , maybe the CPS worker felt that it was revelant .... doesn't really matter ... from what i can gather the entire blow up over the oath keepers , proably came from the oath keepers themselves and some of their more unsound memebers ..

If the oather keepers had done their due dillgence they would have EASILY seen that this irsh guy was a scum bag NOT worth tarnshing their name over ..all of the information now coming to light appears to paint him as a nut job ....

what they should have done was let out a press release saying that they do not condone violence , that the saftey of children is of the utmost imporantce and that CPS is held in deep respect by them as the last defence of helpless children ... They could have then publicly set up a fund FOR THE CHILD ... if they wanted to dig deeper into this , they should have done it quitely behind closed doors with no fan fare whatsoever ..

maybe they wanted attention , i hadn't heard anything about the OK for a long time , i know that some of these groups crave attention .. but this is the type of attention that one should not desire ....

From what I understand, John Irish joined the Oath Keepers forum, but he is not an actual member of the Oath Keepers organization.

I believe the Oath Keepers do vet their members.

[quote]

“I know practically nothing about Jonathan Irish,â€

Part of the reason is that child protective services operate in a sort of gray zone between legal enforcement and civil law. They themselves don't arrest anybody. They use the police for that. They use the courts to enforce their civil judgements, such as custody decisions. So, that's why things get murky whenever they are involved. There is definitely a picture they are trying to paint about Jon. We don't have the whole record, but in hindsight the use of bomb sniffing dogs at the hospital was clearly histrionic. And of course no bombs were found. But it has now become a volatile, escalating situation. Some people belive "The radical right wing is after us." in addition to the earlier, "The government is after us." Neither sitatuation is likely to be what it seems once the dust settles.

Some people belive "The radical right wing is after us."

Alot of people believe this because on many levels it appears to be true. There is alot wrong with the above situation, however , it is murky because there is probably wrong doing on both parts. With all the publicity,the truth is bound to come out so I will save my judgment until then. What jumps out at me is that Oath keepers is on the a affidavit at all, that is definitely wrong in my opinion. That in itself shows corruption on at least a local level in that town IMO.

But now it seems the SPLC has been made part of the broad Department of Homeland Security community, with its president, Richard Cohen, helping formulate plans to be submitted to Secretary Janet Napolitano to help "combat violent extremism."

The issue was raised by Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers organization, which recruits a wide range of peace officers and others to affirm that they will not go beyond the reach of the U.S. Constitution, even if asked to by their government.

"This is no joke," he told WND. "They're telling us they're going to use social welfare and go and indoctrinate parents and children to look for signs of extremism."

He referenced an online report called the "Countering Violent Extremism Working Group" to which Cohen contributed.

That report, identified as being from Spring 2010, also includes as a contributor Ronald Haddad, the chief of police in Dearborn, Mich., who in recent weeks has seen his officers arrest Christians for talking to Muslims about Jesus on public rights-of-way. Charges later were dismissed.


Also on the panel was Amin Kosseim, a deputy inspector for the New York City Policy Department; Mohamed Magid of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society; Dalia Mogahed of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies; Asim Rehman of the Muslim Bar Association of New York; Nadia Moumani of the American Muslim Civic Leadership Institute; and a contributor Rhodes called a "token Christian," Mary Marr of the Christian Emergency Network.

Agency officials did not return a WND request for comment today.

Learn how to foil those who would damage the nation. Get "Taking America Back" now from the WND Superstore.

Cited as "Subject Matter Experts"' were Laurie Wood, an analyst for the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Arif Alikhan, an assistant secretary for policy development in the DHS, among others.

WND reported earlier when the SPLC issued a scathing report linking the tea party participants to the murderous rage of McVeigh, who killed children and adults alike in his attack on the Oklahoma City federal building.

The SPLC report, "Rage on the Right, The Year in Hate and Extremism," assailed Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., for "plugging" anti-government ideas and Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt for daring to promote Second Amendment gun rights.

The SPLC's Mark Potok warned "so-called 'Patriot' groups – militias and other organizations that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose 'one-world government' on liberty-loving Americans – came roaring back after years out of the limelight."

Themes echoed

The report echoed themes in a U.S. Department of Homeland Security report in 2009 that characterized "right-wing extremists" as opponents of abortion and illegal immigration and supporters of gun rights and third-party political candidates.

The SPLC said the "radical right" "caught fire last year."

Potol said the tea parties "and similar groups that have sprung up in recent months cannot fairly be considered extremist groups, but they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism."

Now Rhodes says the new document makes it look as though the SPLC is "officially part of the DHS."

"What does the working group do? Make recommendations on training and how to use all of the local resources – police, social services, media, NGOs, you name it – to fight 'extremism.' So, now no need to file a FOIA request to discover that SPLC is writing the reports naming constitutionalists as possible terrorists. Now it is in your face and the mask is off," Rhodes said.

"Pay attention to who sits on this panel … to who DOESN'T, how they plan on reaching DHS tentacles down into every level of society, and how they talk overtly about the need to utilize local SOCIAL WELFARE and MENTAL HEALTH agencies to counter 'violent extremism,'" he said.

The report includes comments about "establishing advisory councils/focus groups to include civic and community organizations, faith based and education entities, private sector security, and the media," as well as efforts to 'leverage all available public and private resources within a local environment including social services, medical, mental health and family/school counseling professional."

The use of "social services" options already may have begun. Rhodes cited a developing case of a social services agency in Concord, N.H., that cited a father's interest in Oath Keepers as one of the reasons to take state custody of a newborn baby away from the parents.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=213269

Originally Posted by April

Some people belive "The radical right wing is after us."

Alot of people believe this because on many levels it appears to be true. There is alot wrong with the above situation, however , it is murky because there is probably wrong doing on both parts. With all the publicity,the truth is bound to come out so I will save my judgment until then. What jumps out at me is that Oath keepers is on the a affidavit at all, that is definitely wrong in my opinion. That in itself shows corruption on at least a local level in that town IMO.

Definitely, the right wing has powerful enemies, and if they can use this situation to further their own ends, they sure as heck will. Oath Keepers has to protest, regardless of whatever Jon may or may not have done, because it sets a dangerous precedent and was a procedural lapse that must not go unchallenged. The idea that your memberships or philosophy can ever be listed as a reason for an action like this, is wrong. But if they get away with it, look out. I'm guessing that a lawyer will have a field day with this one thing. But the larger issues here remain murky. Especially any details about the legal husband in the background.

I've got to disagre with you on this betsy . I think at some point being poltically correct has to have boundries where it ends.

If he styled and portrayed himself as being an oath keeper then that should be on the table. When determing the fate of a child , ever concviable factor must be taken into acount before we strip that child of it's mother.

If I'm sitting in a room with that case file and I've got to make a decision ,well then I want to know EVERY thing about the parents. Sorry folks but the oath keepers are NOT main stream yet so yes any affilation he has with them can and should be taken into account , remember we are looking at unusual factors that put these parents outside of the norm.

As a juevinal did MR Irish actually threaten to kill his school mates ? Has he been arrested for domestic violence before ? Has he been instutuonalized in a psychatric hospital ? Does he have a stronger than usual love for guns ? Add in his real or imigined affilation with the oath keepers and you have a damning picture of the man.

No stone should be left unturned when it comes to child welfare , even if feelings get hurt.

I still don't feel like Jon was the main target here. Someone's been trying to get Stephanie's children away from her for at least nearly two years now, according to the document released (and we only have one page of it), maybe before she even became involved with Jon.

Discrediting Jon (whether he's guilty or whatever his degree of wrongdoing, if any, was) was a part of that operation. If he could be pictured as even an adequate father figure, then that would pretty much call a halt to terminating her parental rights, at least for the foreseeable future.

What about the father of her two older children, who is still her legal husband and who is said to be refusing to cooperate with divorce proceedings? What about the foster parents? Is someone hankering to adopt Stephanie's children away from her?

Knowing about your associations in a custody evaluations is one thing, using an association that is irrelevant to your parenting ability to render an adverse decision is another and I think it will be a slam dunk for a lawyer. But that will not affect the two older children.

Remember, Jon still has to legally establish paternity before he has any standing in the issue of the baby's custody because the mother was still legally married to another man, and the presumption of the law is that any children born during a marriage are the children of the legal husband, until proven otherwise. That's the real reason they were able to grab the baby. Jon has no legal standing as the baby's father yet.

These are interesting cases from Europe and one from the US that show the growing "trend" coming from the countries of the EU.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/wrongful_removal_cases


The paper at link below is one theory/comparison on the CPS - I am not sure what to think of this, but it does give food for thought.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/34179
Copy from the website is prohibited.

But regardless the Oathkeepers should NOT have been brought into it. It is not my place to judge or speculate on a families fitness as parents. I have a problem with the reason given by the State.

Originally Posted by Newmexican

These is an interesting cases from Europe and one from the US that show the growing "trend" coming from the countries of the EU.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/wrongful_removal_cases


The paper at link below is one theory/comparison on the CPS - I am not sure what to think of this, but it does give food for thought.
http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/34179
Copy from the website is prohibited.

But regardless the Oathkeepers should NOT have been brought into it. It is not my place to judge or speculate on a families fitness as parents. I have a problem with the reason given by the State.

ah hahahahahahaha!!!!!

Your actualy comparing the new Hampshire CPS to Nazi's ?

Ah hahahahahaha!!!!