Newborn taken because father is Oathkeeper supporter

[Elhuero]

Been watching this on ridleyreport on youtube.

Apparently child protective services in NH took custody of a newborn, in the affidavit they list one of the reasons as the father is a supporter of the Oathkeepers "militia" and "had purchased several different types of weapons, including a rifle, handgun, and taser."

They also say the infant was neglected, yet the child was taken as soon as it was born.

info at oathkeepers.org:

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/...from-hospital/


on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYqTY...eature=channel


I haven't made my mind up yet but so far this seems extremely fishy to me. Removal of a child because of group affiliation of a parent is extremely illegal.

[soco11]

Yah, it is so fishy and so illegal--so very, very illegal--that there must be lots more to the story. I saw another article which said that it was actually a matter with these people's other children being abused or neglected, and so they took custody of the new baby as well. But haven't actually seen any news on the matter...and who would believe what the news printed anyway?

[clublights]

There MUST be something else............ most of the articles I have read about this ( 4 total so far ) all say " we can't say whatelse was in the affidavit due to privacy concerns" and one even went to say " the other charges are serious"

Which means there must be some serious BS goin on with the other charges......


HOWEVER....

Listing the whole "oathkeepers" ( a group I fundamentally disagree with ... tho I'll defend their right to be the way they are with my own life) as a factor is some bullshit. I feel this was probably ONE asshole cop ....... or more likely ONE asshole douchebag DA lawyer including this in the paperwork.

What if this was a muslim baby born into a extremist muslim family ? . oh wait that would never happen .. can't offend the minority ......... but the majority .. fuck em... And the ACLU would be alllllllllllllllll the hell over it.

[sniper7]

I totally trust the .gov system with children

[Not_A_Llama]

Very seldom is there only one reason.

[Irving]

Just seeing the title of this thread my first thought was that there must be a lot more to the story. If there are charges serious enough to take the baby as soon as it is born, then mention of this organization is not at all necessary. Makes me second guess the validity of the other charges, even though I have no idea what they are.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I agree.. there gotta be more to this story.