.

Oathkeepers Thread Disappeared?

Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871

Comments

  • pickenuppickenup Member, Moderator Posts: 22,365 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Wyatt Earp
    Oathkeepers Thread Disappeared?
    Wasn't my doing.
    ?
  • wpagewpage Member Posts: 10,191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Seems unfair to use that as a basis for removing children.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wpage
    Seems unfair to use that as a basis for removing children.
    Unfair????

    Is there an issue here, beyond what you see as unfairness, perhaps?
  • RTKBARTKBA Member Posts: 331 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    What was the point to locking the Oath keeper thread? I thought the discussion was going well. Does anyone have any phone# or e-mail address I can use to protest the use of Oath keepers as a reason to take some ones child away? Thanks
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by RTKBA
    What was the point to locking the Oath keeper thread? I thought the discussion was going well. Does anyone have any phone# or e-mail address I can use to protest the use of Oath keepers as a reason to take some ones child away? Thanks
    Perhaps the one who locked it had taken a position in the thread, earlier, that the Oath Keepers were telling half-truths and half-lies and that made them no better than 'the enemy', despite Stewart Rhodes confirmation of the facts on the 7th, which were posted on the locked thread....

    Perhaps the most recent posting by Oath Keepers which amounted to an insurmountable confirmation of the use of the Oath Keeper affiliation in the affidavit in support of the removal order; well, perhaps it shined a bad light on all the poo-pooers, naysayers, liberty-schitters and government supporters and locking the thread was the best method to make it go away and not bring focus on the above issues...

    Perhaps...
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Oathkeepers is an organization that I support, but I have a sickening feeling that it a significant portion of its membership, as well as some very well respected folks here, are hitching their horse to the wrong wagon.

    Am I comfortable with listing an association w/ OK as a reason to remove a child from the home? No

    Ownership of weapons? Of course not


    The point remains, however, that if the allegations against this guy (a LONG history of abuse of his girlfriend and her 2 kids) are true, the seizures were, IMO, justified.

    Remember, gentlemen, that not a whole lot of people know who Oathkeepers are.....if their first exposure to the organization is to find out that it doggedly defended a child abuser....well, the damage could torpedo its credibility.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    Oathkeepers is an organization that I support, but I have a sickening feeling that it a significant portion of its membership, as well as some very well respected folks here, are hitching their horse to the wrong wagon.

    Am I comfortable with listing an association w/ OK as a reason to remove a child from the home? No

    Ownership of weapons? Of course not


    The point remains, however, that if the allegations against this guy (a LONG history of abuse of his girlfriend and her 2 kids) are true, the seizures were, IMO, justified.

    Remember, gentlemen, that not a whole lot of people know who Oathkeepers are.....if their first exposure to the organization is to find out that it doggedly defended a child abuser....well, the damage could torpedo its credibility.


    Unfortunately, they have no choice. Listing a political affiliation as a reason for government "legalized" coercian is unprecedented, and is a violation of the constitution, of the highest order. Not only they, but every civil liberties/ freedom fighting org in the country had better swarm all over this like disturbed hornets. If they are left to do what needs to be done, all by themselves, we are in extreme danger.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    And once again...

    An excerpt from this article/fact statement from Oath Keepers...

    http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10/11/confirmed-court-did-rely-on-oath-keeper-association-to-take-baby/

    "You Defend the Constitution for Everyone, Regardless of Innocence or Guilt, Regardless of Virtue or Vice

    One last point: Too many people are asking "but did he do it." In constitutional law, what counts is not whether the particular defendant was an angel or a "dirtbag" - whether he is innocent or committed the underlying offense at issue. What counts is whether the Constitution is protected.

    For example, Ernesto Miranda was suspected of kidnapping and raping of an 18-year-old girl. Because of the Supreme Court ruling, which ruled his confession inadmissible, his first conviction was overturned. But then the case was retried, leaving out the tainted confession, and Miranda was convicted and served 20 years. A dirtbag? You bet. He was a filthy rapist. Guilty? Yes, so found by a jury of his peers. He raped the girl and was rightfully convicted and locked up. But it was still wrong to coerce his confession, and his case gave us the procedural protection of our "Miranda" rights, which helps to give meaningful effect to our right to remain silent and to not incriminate ourselves, as well as our right to have counsel present at questioning.

    The same goes for the case of Jose Padilla, the alleged "Chicago dirty bomber." A dirtbag? Likely. He as both a former gang member and liked to hang out with Al Qaeda types. But that still did not make it OK to black bag him with no due process and throw him in a military brig on secret evidence, without indictment, without a lawyer, without a jury trial, for over two years. That was unconstitutional even if he "did it." (he was later convicted in a jury trial of aiding Al Qaeda). Even though a dirtbag, he still had procedural rights that were violated, and those violations set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us. Now, according to the Fourth Circuit (who's decision still stands as "good law"), that can be done to any of us. What happens even to "bad guys" can and will affect our rights too. Rules of due process and protections of free speech and association apply to EVERYONE, not just those who are pure as the driven snow.

    Sadly, so dumbed down is the average American that many just cannot grasp these elemental concepts. In this case, they ask whether the parents are "guilty," as if that would make it OK to list their political associations or gun owner status as evidence of why they are unfit parents. If people cannot understand why this cannot be allowed to happen, then how can we restore our Republic? That is why, regardless of whether the parents are guilty of any of the alleged abuse; the listing of their association with Oath Keepers is illegitimate and must be fought. And it will.

    We Oath Keepers and our many allies will fight this regardless of the supposed validity of the other allegations against the parents. This use of political associations as evidence is wrong in every case, and in any case. It is the "weaponization" of CPS - turning it into a weapon against political undesirables. And that weapon will be used to silence and suppress those who might otherwise speak out, and to silence and suppress those who already have spoken out. It will thus chill speech even when not used (just by the implied threat that you may be paid a visit by CPS if you get "uppity"), and it will punish speech when used against dissidents who still dare to speak out.

    Either you defend the Constitution for everyone, or we may as well just scrap it and let government agencies and judges do whatever they want to those they deem bad, using whatever arbitrary "reasons" they want, like in some third world junta. The choice is yours. I hope to see you in New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state on Thursday.

    Stewart Rhodes"
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    lt, the point would be driven home if his political associations where the sole reason for the seizures.

    As it stands, the state is presenting a case that the child was in immediate danger due to the parent's abusive past.

    Do I want the section regarding OK to be stricken from the affidavit? Absolutely.....but I don't believe its inclusion reduces other relevant concerns in this case.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    lt, the point would be driven home if his political associations where the sole reason for the seizures.

    As it stands, the state is presenting a case that the child was in immediate danger due to the parent's abusive past.

    Do I want the section regarding OK to be stricken from the affidavit? Absolutely.....but I don't believe its inclusion reduces other relevant concerns in this case.
    Nor do I, Rack, and I make no defense of any of the other allegations and no speculation or pronouncement of his and her guilt or innocence.

    Not enough is known, one way or the other to do so.

    That said, the issue of 'the state' listing his gun ownership and affiliation with Oath Keepers in the official affidavit in support of the removal order, must not and will not be allowed to pass, period.

    We call it a line in the sand and it has been crossed.
  • skicatskicat Member Posts: 14,431
    edited November -1
    While I hope for the best possible outcome for the children involved in this incident their welfare , of necessity, must be placed on a back burner while the larger issue is addressed. That issue, as so aptly named in earlier posts, is the weaponization of the CPS. That is the issue which threatens all of us.
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    lt, the point would be driven home if his political associations where the sole reason for the seizures.


    I think the issue is bigger than the guy and his associations at this point Rack. I don't like that the guy may have turned out to be a loser, but the real point is the clear message sent by the authorities when they typed Oath Keepers in the affidavit.

    They may have other good reason to take the child but they've now showed their hand by saying what they think of Oath Keepers.

    This is a clear clue for everyone to pay attention.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    While I hope for the best possible outcome for the children involved in this incident their welfare , of necessity, must be placed on a back burner while the larger issue is addressed.


    I'd turn in my badge before I ever delivered a child back into the hands of a child abuser.

    "Not on my watch" isn't just a political slogan.....
  • skicatskicat Member Posts: 14,431
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    While I hope for the best possible outcome for the children involved in this incident their welfare , of necessity, must be placed on a back burner while the larger issue is addressed.


    I'd turn in my badge before I ever delivered a child back into the hands of a child abuser.

    "Not on my watch" isn't just a political slogan.....

    RackOps.......Can't you see that this is not an issue of child abuse? To persist in the falsely noble position of protecting children you are throwing away all freedom. If this is allowed to go unchallenged no one will ever speak up for fear of losing their children to thugs with nothing more concrete than unfounded accusations. Your attitude will throw all of us and our children under the bus.you need to re-examine this event. It is not about child abuse!
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    While I hope for the best possible outcome for the children involved in this incident their welfare , of necessity, must be placed on a back burner while the larger issue is addressed.


    I'd turn in my badge before I ever delivered a child back into the hands of a child abuser.

    "Not on my watch" isn't just a political slogan.....
    Sad for me to see you go off on such a tangent, Rack.

    Agree to adamantly disagree.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    Your attitude will throw all of us and our children under the bus.[/blue]you need to re-examine this event. It is not about child abuse!


    Of course it is.

    The parents involved (particularly the father) have already been found to be child abusers. Its why the two older children were taken from the home previously.

    Nothing that I've read thus far, and I've read as much as I could find on this topic, has stated that those children were taken because of the father's political association(s).

    The police have stated they have responded to the home "numerous" times regarding domestic disturbances....and we know that the the father was court-ordered to complete a domestic violence class, which he didn't bother to complete, btw. My best guess is that was stipulation for keeping the kids.
  • Wyatt EarpWyatt Earp Member Posts: 5,871
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by skicat
    Your attitude will throw all of us and our children under the bus.[/blue]you need to re-examine this event. It is not about child abuse!


    Of course it is.

    The parents involved (particularly the father) have already been found to be child abusers. Its why the two older children were taken from the home previously.

    Nothing that I've read thus far, and I've read as much as I could find on this topic, has stated that those children were taken because of the father's political association(s).

    The police have stated they have responded to the home "numerous" times regarding domestic disturbances....and we know that the the father was court-ordered to complete a domestic violence class, which he didn't bother to complete, btw. My best guess is that was stipulation for keeping the kids.



    I would feel completely ok with the kid being taken away if Oath Keepers was not listed on the affidavit. But then, if it hadn't been listed, maybe they wouldn't have been interested.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    Sad for me to see you go off on such a tangent, Rack.


    I don't see it as a tangent at all, lt. A "tangent" (at least in my usage) is generally some unimportant, irrelevant point that only distracts from the greater issue at hand.

    To my way of thinking, there are few things more relevant than an abused child.


    Is the Constitution more important than a child? I believe so...because I believe the Constitution is more important than any one (or group) of us...but there's no reason the two issues cannot be resolved separately, at the same time.

    The "oathkeepers" and "gun ownership" portions of the affidavit can be (and should be) challenged in court.....but that doesn't mean we should be placing children back into an abusive home in the meantime.

    I do understand the position you are taking, lt. I just can't understand why after everything we've witnessed (Patriot Act, gun bans, etc) that THIS is the line in the sand.


    I sincerely hope we can find some common ground, being on opposite sides is something I'm unfamiliar (and honestly, a bit uncomfortable) with.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    My perspective is, that this sets a precident to construe your association with certain groups, and gun ownership, as child abuse. Giving them "cause" to break into your family and snatch away your kids.

    I am not going to say this guy was an angel, and likely he WAS abusing the kids. For that, he should stand for his judgement.

    The precident this case sets however, is much bigger than some douch abusing kids.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by lt496
    Sad for me to see you go off on such a tangent, Rack.


    I don't see it as a tangent at all, lt. A "tangent" (at least in my usage) is generally some unimportant, irrelevant point that only distracts from the greater issue at hand.

    To my way of thinking, there are few things more relevant than an abused child.


    Is the Constitution more important than a child? I believe so...because I believe the Constitution is more important than any one (or group) of us...but there's no reason the two issues cannot be resolved separately, at the same time.

    The "oathkeepers" and "gun ownership" portions of the affidavit can be (and should be) challenged in court.....but that doesn't mean we should be placing children back into an abusive home in the meantime.

    I do understand the position you are taking, lt. I just can't understand why after everything we've witnessed (Patriot Act, gun bans, etc) that THIS is the line in the sand.


    I sincerely hope we can find some common ground, being on opposite sides is something I'm unfamiliar (and honestly, a bit uncomfortable) with.


    Rack, never once has anybody even remotely suggested anything concerning placing the child at further risk. The only issue being discussed as paramount is the unprecedented use of political affiliation as a means to justify removing the kids. If other legit reasons exist, fine. But what they have done is declared the last freedom we enjoy is now coming under attack as the others have all been. I don't think drawing a line in the sand at our very last "untouched" freedom is unreasonable.

    What better way to begin desensitizing folks to the elimination of our final freedom than using the "just one child" mentality as the vehicle?
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,593 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf

    Rack, never once has anybody even remotely suggested anything concerning placing the child at further risk.


    The comment about putting the children's welfare "on the back burner" seemed to be aimed at doing just that.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
    quote:Originally posted by jpwolf

    Rack, never once has anybody even remotely suggested anything concerning placing the child at further risk.


    The comment about putting the children's welfare "on the back burner" seemed to be aimed at doing just that.


    I took it as in priority of that, or liberty (especially since it was preceded with "best possible outcome for children..."). Perhaps I was wrong, but in that context, it's crystal clear to me.
  • skicatskicat Member Posts: 14,431
    edited November -1
    jpwolf seems to understand the intent of my post. I do sincerely want the best for the children concerned and I make no assumptions on the qualifications of these particular individuals to be entrusted with the care of children.

    That being said, the colossal difference between this case and every other case of placing children into state care was the inclusion in the official documentation of even loose affiliation with a group such as Oathkeepers. In my estimation that is as dramatic an attack on our freedom of speech as the D-Day assault in Normandy was to the occupation of France. It's inclusion can only be construed as an affront to our God given right to free speech and an attempt to intimidate those who would voice opinions contrary to official state dogma.It has no direct relevance to the welfare of the children.

    We must be increasingly vigilant in spotting these perversions where they seek to twist our desire to protect children, the planet, or any one of hundreds of righteous goals into a new degradation of the liberties which we alone in the world still enjoy. They always provide a seemingly plausible reason ,like protecting children, to encourage good people to put up with the latest atrocities against the Constitution. I hope my meaning is more clearly stated with this post.
Sign In or Register to comment.