Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Oath Keeper Baby" fam shows controversial document (New Hampshire)
youtube ^ | RidleyReport

Posted on 10/11/2010 8:36:39 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271

Quotes from the controversial document reportedly put out by the government Oct. 7:

"The division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the "Oath Keepers" and had purchased several different weapons..."

"Without the intervention of the court the infant will be at risk of harm. The child is neglected...."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: New Hampshire
KEYWORDS: cheyenneirish; nannystate; newhampshire; oathkeepers

1 posted on 10/11/2010 8:36:45 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
"Without the intervention of the court the infant will be at risk of harm. ...

Are they not worried about the ghetto babies who are surrounded by guns, drugs, and gang bangers? I call racism.

2 posted on 10/11/2010 8:47:53 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

lol what a mess.


3 posted on 10/11/2010 8:50:18 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

Thing is, it was probably hotlined by the baby’s own grandmother.......


4 posted on 10/11/2010 8:51:42 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

how can it be at risk its first day of life ..


5 posted on 10/11/2010 8:51:47 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
Who neglected the child? It never left the hospital.

Oathkeepers seems to be finding proof that Mr. Irish has the facts on his side.

6 posted on 10/11/2010 8:54:35 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

Some 10 yrs ago, a woman I knew was thinking about abortion and then was encouraged to bear her child and consider adoption. She discussed this with her obstetrician but was given no encouragement, discouragement, or any sign of interest at all in her situation or her child.
This woman did not have a criminal record of any kind, not even a traffic ticket; she did not have any history of drug use at all; nor any of alcohol; nor even of smoking cigarettes. Nothing. Nothing but being widowed. Not even promiscuous, just plain and simple unfortunate and unemployed.
A relative of mine paid in advance for her medical bills, no strings attached.
The baby was no sooner born than the CPS showed up to take the child, though no more than a single mention of adoption had ever been made, and no abuse whatsoever had occurred. CPS simply stated that there was a “potential” for abuse. Based on nothing.
I’ve never forgotten this. Never will.
We got them to back off, only when they realized she was not entirely defenseless and alone.
I remain convinced that CPS does this for financial reasons. Somebody’s making money on newborn babies.
Postscript, mother decided (prior to the birth) to keep her baby, and mother and baby are still together, happy, healthy, no problems. Two of the nicest people I know.
I still don’t know how often such things happen. But they absolutely do happen.
Especially to people who appear defenseless to CPS.


7 posted on 10/11/2010 9:23:20 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( A window seat, a jug of elderberry wine, and thou.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

new hampshire of all places. incredible. waiting to see future blogs and wonder what the outcome of this incident will be.


8 posted on 10/11/2010 9:28:40 PM PDT by 1st Division guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

“I remain convinced that CPS does this for financial reasons. Somebody’s making money on newborn babies.”

There’s another motive. A large portion of adopters where I live are homosexual. The supply of white babies for white homosexual couples must be hard to meet.


9 posted on 10/11/2010 9:35:10 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

I’ve met a lot of CPS workers over the past 10 years. Not one was a gay activist. I don’t think they could care less about gays one way or another.
If the gay couple can pay, however...that would be another matter.
In the case I mentioned in the previous post, they were trying to victimize a woman (over 21, sane, normal, healthy, lawful) who had just lost her husband a few months earlier. She wasn’t even on welfare. The worst thing she’d ever done was to consider adoption. (Considering abortion was not, as far as CPS was concerned, a bad thing. They wouldn’t have intervened if she’d gone to an abortionist.)
I loathe those people beyond my power to express.
If they weren’t doing it for money, they were doing it for the sheer joy of taking a baby from its (apparently defenseless) mother.
And there’s just so low my opinion of human beings can go, so I’m saying they do it for money.


10 posted on 10/11/2010 9:52:04 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( A window seat, a jug of elderberry wine, and thou.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

Oh, I agree with you that the whole thing is a bureaucratic kidnapping based on something that might happen someday. It is strictly a misuse of government and we can expect to see much more of it.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy. This child was from a stable home with a tangential relationship with a very good organization who happen to approve of guns and outdoor activities. That was just enough evidence for the government to call them a terrorist organization.

We know that ghettoes are full of unwed mothers and lots of children as well as lots of guns, drugs, and gang bangers, all a real danger to children and families. Yet, the government subsidizes those people rather than removing the children.


11 posted on 10/11/2010 10:14:10 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

agree


12 posted on 10/11/2010 10:18:36 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Perhaps. My wife and I went to adoption classes sponsored by our local county. A shockingly high percentage of the other folks in the class were homosexual couples. We switched after that to a Christian adoption center.


13 posted on 10/11/2010 10:39:27 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Yes - the government acts very strangely at times. They seem to be running a “set play” - and then someone they didn’t expect enters the picture - someone with either intellectual or political power.

And you can tell by the confused response that they never had a legal reason for what they were doing.

It is very scary to be in the presence of evil like that.

All we need is one Marine per hospital.


14 posted on 10/11/2010 11:00:02 PM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast; ModelBreaker

Concerning motivation -

Remember - they keep lists of their heroic actions -

This would count as “one more child we had to save from danger” - if they “saved” 20 last year - they want to “save” 21 the year after - to keep drawing their salaries and overtime etc.

The babies are just work in process inventory - or demand - for the government workers labor.


15 posted on 10/11/2010 11:04:52 PM PDT by Eldon Tyrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271
I'm still nervous about this story. What if we raise hell for a week or two and then find out the guy was a meth head or something. It's great to jump on the Oath Keeper angle, but I am still not convinced that was the trigger for picking up the child. This guy could end up embarrassing Freepers and Oath Keepers if he's a baby shaker or something.
16 posted on 10/12/2010 1:15:10 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
When reading some of the comments on youtube, one said that he had abused his wife. That would put the baby in danger. I don't know what Oath Keepers would have to do with anything. If anyone has access to local news, maybe they have revealed the cause.
17 posted on 10/12/2010 1:24:48 AM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot; Admin Moderator

This guy has tarnished our reputation. These threads should be rubbed away.
This guy doesn’t have “facts” or “proof” or anything. His wife charged him domestic violence. Irish has failed the conditions of the court. His wife has already had two children taken by the court so she had another. His wife has applied for a divorce but he won’t sign it.
See this thread on another forum.
The poster “Denise” has uncovered Irish’s arrest report: sexual assault on a minor, drug possession, charged with operating after suspension, false registration/inspection sticker and unregistered motor vehicle.

http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/to-those-running-with-the-oath?commentId=2600775%3AComment%3A2823125&xg_source=activity


18 posted on 10/12/2010 1:29:03 AM PDT by namvolunteer (I can see November from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: citizenredstater9271

The old adage is still True— Guns don’t kill people—
people do. When the government acts as if it is the guns that
puts children at risk— it really says the prince is weak and
ignorant and does not trust the people with weapons. More than ever we need leaders who will honor the second amendment.And less tyranny of the jackbooted thugs


19 posted on 10/12/2010 5:55:13 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Try to think of one millionaire who had their baby taken from them in the hospital or any other place.


20 posted on 10/12/2010 7:23:44 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

On the other end of the life scale in Florida recently a friend who was involved with both his elderly aunts, had the aunt whose assest are not in trust, forcibly placed into state custody. They left the trust aunt alone, but absconded with most of the availble funding of the other aunt as FEEs.


21 posted on 10/12/2010 7:32:06 AM PDT by Chickensoup (There is a group of people who suck off the productive. They make rules then find infractions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

I am guessing the answer is that none have. However, my knowledge of the personal lives of millionaires is non-existent but I imagine that if a millionaire couple lost their baby as these people did it would be in the news. I haven’t heard of any.

My answer obscures the value of your question. I understand it and agree with it.


22 posted on 10/12/2010 9:32:52 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: namvolunteer; citizenredstater9271; dalebert; SWAMPSNIPER; 1st Division guy; Eldon Tyrell; ...

Thanks for the link, namvolunteer, and a hat tip to chuckles for figuring this out.

Here is the link again.
http://static.infowars.com/2010/10/i/article-images/irishdoc.jpg

The couple are scumbags with histories of drug use and statutory rape. It also looks as if the court document was altered to add the Oath Keepers part. Different font, etc.


23 posted on 10/12/2010 10:03:38 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
October 11th, 2010

CONFIRMED: Court Did Rely on Oath Keeper Association to Take Baby

There has been some confusion about this case, leading some commentators to believe that the reference to John Irish’s “association” with Oath Keepers was in some other document, rather than in the affidavit relied on by the Court’s Order. Alex Jones’ site, in an effort to protect the privacy of the family, posted excerpts from two different documents, leading some to question where the reference actually was. To clear that up, below you will find an embedded PDF which contains the full (though redacted) versions of the following documents: the two Petitions (one pertaining to each parent), the Court’s Ex Parte Order, the Affidavit of Dana Bickford which was attached, the Motion for Change of Venue, and lastly, the Notice to Accused Parent, explaining the legal process. We have highlighted in yellow all text where the Petitions or the Court Order refers to the Affidavit which contains reference to Oath Keepers.

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

24 posted on 10/12/2010 1:07:06 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
The point is that if the government can cite buying guns and association with Oathkeepers as cause to confiscate kids the government can cite association with Freepers, GOA, and NRA, as cause to confiscate kids.

The moral status of the parents is irrelevant to this.

25 posted on 10/12/2010 1:14:34 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

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


26 posted on 10/12/2010 1:16:24 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, A Matter Of Fact, Not A Matter Of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER
The point is that if the government can cite buying guns and association with Oathkeepers as cause to confiscate kids the government can cite association with Freepers, GOA, and NRA, as cause to confiscate kids.

Or anything else. If the government can take your children with a ruse they can take everything else, even your life.

27 posted on 10/12/2010 7:48:03 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson