Oath Keepers event Thursday the 14th
Due to recent events (see my previous post), it may surprise and confuse some that I would write this. It may be further confusing for those who know my general aversion to acting on speculation and protests / rallies. I'd like to make two things clear here: 1) I'm not speaking on behalf of or as a representative of any organization, 2) my intent here is to be mostly informational and limit my opinion statements to the one I make clearly towards the end.
A lot has been said about the baby custody / Oath Keepers story. I have heard much of that but have first-hand knowledge of virtually nothing. According to the Concord Monitor, the newborn baby of Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor was taken into state custody shortly after birth while still in the hospital here in New Hampshire. The DCYF affidavit supporting the taking included many stated reasons, one of which was Irish's association with an organization called "Oath Keepers".
Oath Keepers is an organization which attempts to persuade those serving under an oath to protect the constitution (military, police, etc.) to affirm that they will "not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders..." They list several specific orders they won't obey if given with reasons.
The Monitor mentions many other reasons listed in the affidavit. It is unclear to me based on that article how significant the affidavit itself is, and/or whether the listing of Oath Keepers affiliation was actually considered, and to what extent, in the decision to take the child. That said, all reports I've read indicate that affidavit actually did come from the government and actually did list Oath Keepers affiliation as a reason to take the child. In my opinion, that is bad... very bad.
Stewart Rhodes (founder of Oath Keepers) informed me tonight that they are holding a rally on Thursday, the 14th in Dover. Details can be found here. The rally is at the Rochester Family Division Court, 259 County Farm Rd., Dover, NH from 12pm to 4pm. He asked me if I would help spread the word about the rally.
Maybe most importantly, he did what I hoped he would. He zeroed in on the real problem with this case. The real problem with this is not whether the parents are good or even fit parents. They may or may not be totally fit or totally unfit, and the government may or may not have been (otherwise) completely justified in taking the baby (in order to protect its life). I simply don't have enough information to even begin to consider those issues.
The real problem that does appear very clear to me is that the government included political group affiliation as a reason for taking a child from its parents. The inclusion of that in the affidavit is totally inappropriate.
Based on my conversation with Stewart, it is my understanding that this rally will zero in on that specific problem. I share Oath Keepers' strong disapproval of the use of political group affiliation as a reason, even if among other legitimate reasons, for taking children from their parents. Whether the taking was justified or not, I believe the government needs to be made aware that it is not acceptable to list political affiliation as they have apparently done in this case.
If you're the rallying type, this rally may be a good way to express that very concern.
V-
A lot has been said about the baby custody / Oath Keepers story. I have heard much of that but have first-hand knowledge of virtually nothing. According to the Concord Monitor, the newborn baby of Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor was taken into state custody shortly after birth while still in the hospital here in New Hampshire. The DCYF affidavit supporting the taking included many stated reasons, one of which was Irish's association with an organization called "Oath Keepers".
Oath Keepers is an organization which attempts to persuade those serving under an oath to protect the constitution (military, police, etc.) to affirm that they will "not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders..." They list several specific orders they won't obey if given with reasons.
The Monitor mentions many other reasons listed in the affidavit. It is unclear to me based on that article how significant the affidavit itself is, and/or whether the listing of Oath Keepers affiliation was actually considered, and to what extent, in the decision to take the child. That said, all reports I've read indicate that affidavit actually did come from the government and actually did list Oath Keepers affiliation as a reason to take the child. In my opinion, that is bad... very bad.
Stewart Rhodes (founder of Oath Keepers) informed me tonight that they are holding a rally on Thursday, the 14th in Dover. Details can be found here. The rally is at the Rochester Family Division Court, 259 County Farm Rd., Dover, NH from 12pm to 4pm. He asked me if I would help spread the word about the rally.
Maybe most importantly, he did what I hoped he would. He zeroed in on the real problem with this case. The real problem with this is not whether the parents are good or even fit parents. They may or may not be totally fit or totally unfit, and the government may or may not have been (otherwise) completely justified in taking the baby (in order to protect its life). I simply don't have enough information to even begin to consider those issues.
The real problem that does appear very clear to me is that the government included political group affiliation as a reason for taking a child from its parents. The inclusion of that in the affidavit is totally inappropriate.
Based on my conversation with Stewart, it is my understanding that this rally will zero in on that specific problem. I share Oath Keepers' strong disapproval of the use of political group affiliation as a reason, even if among other legitimate reasons, for taking children from their parents. Whether the taking was justified or not, I believe the government needs to be made aware that it is not acceptable to list political affiliation as they have apparently done in this case.
If you're the rallying type, this rally may be a good way to express that very concern.
V-