4um: Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
National News
See other National News Articles
Title: Oath Keepers prep lawsuit against NH bureaucrats
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 16, 2010
Author: Ridley
Post Date: 2010-10-16 22:25:38 by RidleyReport
Keywords: None
Views: 333
Comments: 35

From RidleyReport.com
After using Oath Keepers affiliation as one excuse for taking a baby, New Hampshire's child protective division is now the target of a planned lawsuit. Oath Keepers is a group of current/former military/police who pledge they won't follow unconstitutional orders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwxLUUkZnU4
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#7. To: RidleyReport (#0)
I am personally very pleased how quickly Steward Rhodes was able to put together a team of OathKeeper professionals to deal with this baby issue. Let's sick that team on the ADL and SPLC. Since when is a militia a bad thing, anyway. Militia... where have I read that term before.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In order for a free State to be secure, a group of citizens, not part of the regular army, need to train and become proficient like soldiers. Therefore, the people's right to own and carry weapons shall not be violated.

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 1:00:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: wakeup (#7) (Edited)
I am personally very pleased how quickly Steward Rhodes was able to put together a team of OathKeeper professionals to deal with this baby issue.

You missed the boat, pal. Rhodes is only interested in the claim within an affidavit that is legally signed by a judge that uses or otherwise politicizes the good name of the Oath Keepers as a reason or as substantial proof for any reason (outside the solid foundation of the group) which potentially cools first amendment rights, not just for the Oath Keepers but also any political group.

Since when is a militia a bad thing, anyway. Militia... where have I read that term before.

The Oath Keepers are not in any way associated with militias; perhaps individual members are but that is a moot point.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 1:37:04 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#13. To: buckeroo (#8)
Surely an Oathkeeper in need was the primary cause to action but, shortly the focus went to protecting the reputation of the organization once it was discovered Irish was dirty.

wakeup posted on 2010-10-17 9:02:20 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#15. To: wakeup, PSUSA, RidleyReport (#13)
See post#9,10,11 & 12 ....
Dave Ridley is an outstanding reporter. I wish we had a few more like this true investigative reporter.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:11:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#16. To: buckeroo (#15)
I wish we had a few more like this true investigative reporter.

Yeah. He did well on this one. He went right to the source of info he was looking for; the father.
If everyone else involved had gone directly to the source(s) and simply verified the info provided, this never would have become an issue.
The only group that benefits from all this crap is OK. They're milking it for all it's worth.
.

PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 9:21:49 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#18. To: PSUSA, RidleyReport, Artisian, FormerLurker, Original_Intent, wakeup (#16)
If everyone else involved had gone directly to the source(s) and simply verified the info provided, this never would have become an issue.

I won't mention any names but some initials come to mind like: Artisian, FormerLurker and Original_Intent.

The only group that benefits from all this crap is OK. They're milking it for all it's worth.

Have you ever read the the Extremist Lexicon by the US Department of Homeland Security - circa 2009? Rhodes has every right to ensure his group of Oath Keepers are not included.

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 9:34:07 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#19. To: buckeroo (#18) (Edited)
Artisian, FormerLurker

Both Good Guys afaiac. OI is a pseudo-intellectual punk. Ever hear him admit "I don't know" or "I was wrong" to anything? I haven't seen it. He always has an answer. And when he doesn't, he distracts.
Rhodes has every right to ensure his group of Oath Keepers are not included.
True. But if it was included due to error, and it was an error to call them a militia because they failed to verify that, then OK wasn't harmed intentionally, from what I've seen so far. It's the militias themselves that have good reason to be alarmed, unless this reflects a bias on the part of whoever filled out these forms (or ordered that info to be included on these forms) and was not the result of official policy.
.

PSUSA posted on 2010-10-17 9:44:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 19.
#20. To: PSUSA (#19)
But if it was included due to error, and it was an error to call them a militia because they failed to verify that, then OK wasn't harmed intentionally, from what I've seen so far.

Beyond any affiliation with militias, are you aware that the Extremist Lexicon poses (in OFFICIAL US government documented fashion) a method of targeting terrorist organizations? Think about what you said when you consider that many active duty military and police and veterans working for government at various levels can be eliminated from their own livelihood by the simple DOD refusal to renew or even potentially revoke active security clearances which are required to do their own day-to-day jobs.

The Oath Keepers are an outstanding organization designed to do nothing more than support an already fragile US Constitution torn to smithereens by politicians and power zealots. Surely you don't want people taking an oath and then become afraid of the same, do you?

buckeroo posted on 2010-10-17 09:53:54 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um