I like how they don't even bother to post the entire documents, just the one thing from an affidavit that supports their case and a change of venue order (which is mostly useless). We're not even sure who the affidavit is from, or even that it factored in the decision.

I also find it a little stupid how they block out the child's name in the body of the document but leave "RE:Cheyenne Irish" right there in the heading.

Anyways, I see how members of the group might get pissed off as being supposedly mislabeled, but that doesn't appear to be the reason they took the child. Just going by what they posted to try and make their point, I see several other good reasons to take this child: The mother is already in court to have the parental rights of her other two children terminated, the father has refused to follow a court order to attend a certain program, and the father has been arrested in the past. These do not sound like fit parents regardless of political association.

Ash Burton wrote:

I made a joke of this because this is a joke. My wife worked for DCF for 3 years as an investigator and by no means is it this easy to remove a child let alone a newborn. There are reasons not being disclosed which are very serious and that is why the child was taken. No one cares what group you belong to, but if you have the intent to harm your child, the state must remove to cover itself. The Federal government has NO say in child protection, it is a state run organization, so unless the governor is planning on turning that state into a socialist society, there is nothing to this story but nonsense.

New Hampshire, a socialist society?

Those guys don't even like to pave their roads.

aeonic wrote:

I don't think, by a long shot, that in a lot of things Alex is right. He does just as much harm as good with a lot of his viewpoints as far as I'm concerned, but like any media outlet with a dubious political agenda (re: CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, network channels, etc) you can occasionally find a kernel of something interesting/real on his site.

See, this is the problem. I don't want a kernel of truth. I want the whole truth.

I can take any fact, strip away 90% of it, present it, and use it to support something entirely the opposite. I can take something completely irrelevant, strip away the context, and present it as if it means something. It's "truth" in the same way that bugs are "food"...sure, you can swallow it if you want to, or need to, but upon closer examination you just want to gag.


"Fox News...slimy, yet satisfying"