Government Agents Seize Oath Keeper’s New Born From Hospital

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2010/10...ts-seize-oath-keepers-new-born-from-hospital/

More...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/government-seizes-newborn-baby-over-political-beliefs-of-parents.html

 

This is an interesting story. I'll be following it to see if it's true and if so, WTF.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAEXqChvwOg

 

What exactly are oath keepers?

 

Sounds like an anti-government group and there are alot of other facts that arent being mentioned here. People have a tendency to spin things in some very twisted ways from time to time to justify their position and get support on their side.

 

I'd like to have the WHOLE story before making any type of conclusion.

 

x2

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers

Essentially, a group of looney tunes fomenting dissidence in military/law enforcement circles that decided to organize because a black democrat president scares them.

 

X2!

 

I didn't read the story, I'm at work and will do so later. I doubt it's true, but if it is, it is a big problem. While there may be some extremist / anti-government types in any group, that is not what Oath Keepers is. Oath keepers is merely a name given to any military or law enforcement personnel who takes it upon themselves to keep the oath (thus the name) which they swore to defend this nation and it's people against all threats, foreign or domestic.

Hopefully a domestic threat will never be a problem, but the thought is that if our politicians began giving orders to the military or LE which were not in the people's best interest or violated the core values of the Constitition, those orders would not be obeyed. Being an "oath keeper" just means you will not turn on the people for the government. That doesn't make you "anti-government" until the government becomes "anti-the-people."

 

I can't check wikipedia from work... ? If that's true it's news to me. I considered myself an Oath keeper when I was enlisted, long before President Obama entered any Federal office, let alone POTUS. If it has become an actual organization it is news to me. As far as I was/am concerned it is just a vow by servicemembers to remember who they are serving.

 

What they're going to openly describe as their purpose to obtain non-profit status is one thing.

Ambiguity is powerful and fun ain't it?

The bottom line is that the "tenets" of this organization call for military and law enforcement personnel to openly disobey orders based on their personal interpretation of the US Constitution, never mind that it's the role of the courts to determine constitutionality of law...as specified in the constitution. Kind of an interesting paradox they have going there.

 

I actually work in government and have witnessed several criminal trails. There are plenty of people out there who cherry pick things in the Constitution and spin it to their own liking. I heard a federal judge tell someone at sentencing, I respect your deep belief in your understanding of the Constitution, unfortunately, people with more legal training have come to different conclusions on these issues than you have.

People will believe what they want to believe, even when it is wrong. I have not heard of oath keepers, but every law enforcement officer at the federal level takes an oath to uphold the consitution of the united states.

 

Well said Sir! Rep coming your way.

 

Exactly - their oaths of service already cover this. Membership in this organization is extraneous...which leads me to believe they have ulterior motives.

 

Stewart Rhodes Explains Oath Keepers Mission

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2MJbw0o-B0&feature=player_embedded

It's funny how liberals label Constitutionalists as extremists and militias. Just like that radical Tea Party movement.

 

Hmm...doesn't look so squeaky clean though. According to the affidavit from the second link, they've already got two pending cases with child services, awaiting ruling as well as failure to complete a mandated anti-violence course (which I am guessing was the result of his carrying of a concealed weapon w/o a permit charge mentioned).

I think there's more to this story than we're seeing.

I'm sure these people want it to be about their affiliation with the oath keepers, and it certainly doesn't help that the affidavit mentions it, but looking at the brief history of run ins with the law, I doubt that played much in the reasons why they took the baby.

 

There's got to be more to it but to site being a member of the Oath Keepers as a reason is strange at best.

 

Hmm...interesting story.

Like many of you who have read this story, it sounded a little too fishy. I'm not saying the baby wasn't seized. Only that the blogosphere's stated reasons for the seizure seemed very much wrong. Note, while I enjoy a balanced discourse, at this moment the only ones creating the noise are those who believe their freedoms are at stake or believe evil government is again to blame. The seizure occurred on Thursday and we need more time before grabbing pitchforks and looking for imaginary boogeymen. It seems the more a blog can sensationalize this, the more the traffic, and the more likely their new readers will use their site as an ongoing resource for news.

Apart from all the rhetoric, there is not a great deal of concrete information. I've found many are referencing two documents: one a request for a change of venue from Merrimack to Rochester and the other is an affadavit from the State of New Hampshire Divsion for Child, Youth, and Families requesting to seize the baby. Again many reference these documents and claim they have them in their hands (gah, I have Elvis' preserved gallbladder in a jar, too) but have not posted any redacted documents. I've only been able to find this:
http://conversations.blackvoices.co...new .../4c38ac0030bc4b50ad3f2ac2a7f0bef2?sn=2
You should find the chopped, redacted info about 3/4 of the way down the page. If anyone else can find the complete documents please post a link. Unsure of legal ramifications, though. Could anyone elaborate?

If these two documents are correct we can ascertain the following facts:
1. The baby in question, "Cheyenne Irish," child of Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor, was seized by the State of New Hampshire Division for Child, Youth and Families.
2. Two previous children of Stephanie Irish have been seized due to neglect and a trial to establish 'Termination of Parental Rights' has been concluded. Judgement has not yet been rendered.
3. The father, Jonathan Irish, associated with a militia group Oathkeepers.
4. Jonathan Irish had purchased several firearms including a rifle, handgun and taser.
5. Jonathan Irish was ordered by a court to attend a program called "Ending the Violence with Scott Hampton." He has not completed the program.
6. Epsom Police have responded to multiple calls concerning Jonathan Irish involving firearms.
7. Jonathan Irish has been changed with "possession of a concealed firearm without a permit."

Other notes from the Concord Monitor:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/219670/couple-state-took-our-baby
1. Jonathan Irish's participation in the "Ending the Violence" program was a court order due to charges of domestic violence.
2. There is a lengthly history of domestic violence between Jonathan Irish and Stephanie Taylor and she has accused him of hitting and choking her on more than on occaision.
3. Referenced on the affadavit is the statement from the state that Stephanie Taylor ""has failed to recognize the impact of domestic violence in her life and the potential danger it poses to a newborn baby."
4. The two children of Stephanie Taylor (she has three, at least that is what we know so far), seized earlier in the year have a different father who she is still married to. These children have been abused by Jonathan Irish.

Notes of the Concord Monitor:
1. Daily newspaper founded 1864 - not a fly-by-night blog or lefty/righty alternative publication.
2. Subscriber base of 19000 (unsure - no firm details).

Concerns/Additional Notes:
1. Was it necessary for the New Hampshire Division of Child, Youth, and Families to reference his passing association with Oath Keepers? I'm using the term passing as he is referenced in saying he participated on their online forum at best while other blogs state he is a member. On top of that, the affavadit states he has purchased several firearms in the same sentence. This seemingly associates Oathkeepers and firearms together almost snarkingly saying all Oath Keepers are gun happy nuts. Why even use bad association? This is the match which seems to have kicked up the contraversy.
2. There are two "Oath Keeper" groups. Confusion may spawn from this and perhaps some might provide additional insight on this.
http://oathkeepers.org/
http://www.realoathkeepers.org/
3. Much of the blogs will also incorrectly state the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is working for the Department of Homeland Security or vice versa. This misguided belief is generated by two issues. The first is a statement by Larry Keller of SPLC stating the Oath Keepers (founded by Stewart Rhodes) "may be a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival." The second is the SPLC provides classes to law enforcement agencies concerning domestic extremist groups/terrorists/etc.
4. More bad association! The topic is also circulating on mixed martial arts sites because someone found a comment that Jonathan Irish is an MMA fan. Good grief.

Conclusion (at least by myself):
This story needs to slowly die. It should be about bad parenting and what can be done with repeated offenders but instead took a tangent on the crazy train. Unfortunately, because a state agency used a loaded statement on an affadavit we are currently all headed on the same track. Lets stop feeding this frenzy.