Alex Jones interviewed Jonathan Irish about the hearing that occurred today in New Hampshire (with a rally going on outside the court house), how the NH Dept. of Family Child Services had incorrect information in their affidavit which resulted in charges being dropped against Mr. Irish, and his daughter being returned to her family. It appears to be a case of mistaken identity in regards to the allegations against Jonathan Irish. Here’s a thought for readers to mull over…
How is it that they knew that Mr. Irish was an Oathkeeper but got the allegations of previous domestic abuse totally wrong? According to the military mind in the Monster’s household, “it’s a test; a trial balloon to see how patriots react.” That surely resonates true.
Concord, NH – Yesterday, I collected this video of John Irish speaking with George4Title (YouTuber) about how his newborn baby was taken from him and his fiancee moments after the child’s birth by The Division of Family Child Services because of Mr. Irish’s affiliation with OathKeepers. I immediately sent an email to the Oathkeepers asking for confirmation. Today we have that confirmation. It’s real. How’s this for a ‘chilling effect‘ on parents’ free speech? We no longer just break down your door, scare your children and shoot your little doggies; step outta line and we take your kids…
UPDATE : 10/07/2010 10.53PM PST — We have confirmed that the affidavit in support of the order to take the child from her parents states ,along with a long list of other assertions against both parents, that “The Division became aware and confirmed that Mr. Irish associated with a militia known as the Oath Keepers.” Yes, there are other, very serious allegations. Out of respect for the privacy of the parents, we will not publish the affidavit. We will leave that to Mr. Irish. But please do remember that allegations do not equal facts — they are merely allegations (and in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer in small town Montana I saw many allegations that proved to be false).
But an even more fundamental point is that regardless of the other allegations, it is utterly unconstitutional for government agencies to list Mr. Irish’s association with Oath Keepers in an affidavit in support of a child abuse order to remove his daughter from his custody. Talk about chilling speech! If this is allowed to continue, it will chill the speech of not just Mr. Irish, but all Oath Keepers and it will serve as the camel under the tent for other associations being considered too risky for parents to dare. Thus, it serves to chill the speech of all of us, in any group we belong to that “officials” may not approve of. Don’t you dare associate with such and such group, or you could be on “the list” and then child protective services might come take your kids.
Yesterday, Bill O’Reilly interviewed Mark Potok of the Southern Law Poverty Center who made comments about how fearful he was of the Oathkeepers (see here).
Today, O’Reilly interviewed Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oathkeepers. It appears that Bill thinks it is perfectly reasonable to suspend the 2nd amendment given a state of emergency, and that the Oathkeepers’ stance is ‘extreme’. I believe that if our government officials were not so blatantly corrupt and such bald faced liars, we would not need people like the Oathkeepers. Does Bill O’Reilly really believe that given a state of emergency, average Americans are going to go out in the streets and shoot it up? He has such a high opinion of us. Who among us believes that our 2nd amendment rights are not under attack and will not continue to be under attack from a government that many of us can no longer trust?
…and the ‘right-wing rebellion’ of the tea parties. Mark seems to know us better than ourselves, since I did not realize that I am secretly terrified of the federal government building concentration camps that we can be herded off to by foreign soldiers. I also did not realize that the democrats and indies that come to this site were double agents for the right-wing conservative movement. My readers have totally snowed me, and I thought I had a clue about the pulse of the people.
How is it that a member of a organization that “tracks hate groups” could think it a good idea to attack the Oathkeepers. At this point, considering what we don’t know about our federal government, I’m glad the Oathkeepers are standing on the wall. How about you? Mr. Potok seems to be overly concerned that the Oathkeepers include police officers that could be laboring under paranoid ideas and then pull a weapon. I’m more concerned going to the store after dark and getting mugged. As much as I detest Bill O’Reilly, I must give him credit for offering an invitation to the Oathkeepers for an interview on tomorrow’s show. We will have to see what transpires.
On a totally different but related note, I have been background processing, and am currently working on an op-ed piece about Glenn Beck and the current media circus surrounding the tea party movement. I wanted to see if my readers think the rule below seems altogether too familiar right now.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
My message to you – stand together, don’t scatter. There are many more of us now than ever before.