3 Children removed from NJ parents

[kandrathe]

While I disagree with Heath Campbell, and his wife Deborah's ideologies, this is another obvious sign that "We the People" are no longer free. I was unaware that there was a naming standard for children. Although, I have empathy for the children that must grow up with neo-nazi parents, I was unaware that being a neo-nazi was a proscribed activity by our government. The irony is that it is the type of tactic the Nazi's themselves would have perpetrated on their own citizens during the third Reich.

Child Protection Officials Removed Adolf Hitler Campbell, 3, From Parents' Home

This is reminiscent of the FLDS seizure, although at least in that case they tried to infer sexual abuse of under aged girls as a reason. With no arrests, and the children being both boys and girls as young as a few months old. Then, after the children were in custody, they inspected their bodies and intensely interrogated them trying to drum up a case. The result of the state taking action without evidence is that almost a year has passed since the April raid with most of the 600 some FLDS boys and girls of all ages still in Texas state custody.

[Jester]

The result of the state taking action without evidence is that almost a year has passed since the April raid with most of the 600 some FLDS boys and girls of all ages still in Texas state custody.

I was under the impression that the vast majority of the children in that case were returned in the last half year ago, after the ruling declaring that the authorities had overstepped their bounds. Is that not the case?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I was under the impression that the vast majority of the children in that case were returned in the last half year ago, after the ruling declaring that the authorities had overstepped their bounds. Is that not the case?

-Jester

I didn't know about that ruling. That is good news. It still seems in some cases CPS is being used as a political weapon against people with minority views.

[Jester]

I didn't know about that ruling. That is good news. It still seems in some cases CPS is being used as a political weapon against people with minority views.

Could be. That last case was certainly surgery with a sledgehammer. I don't think we know enough about little Adolf Hitler to judge what's going on in his case. It could be, as you say, just oppression of a minority view. Possibly some neighbours complaining loudly on the basis of their own opinions. But, maybe there is something there, and I don't think we'd know yet if there was.

-Jester

[Crusader]

While I disagree with Heath Campbell, and his wife Deborah's ideologies, this is another obvious sign that "We the People" are no longer free. I was unaware that there was a naming standard for children. Although, I have empathy for the children that must grow up with neo-nazi parents, I was unaware that being a neo-nazi was a proscribed activity by our government. state custody.

Quoted from the linked article:
"Police, DYFS officials and a court spokeswoman declined to reveal the exact reasons the children were removed from their home, citing confidentiality, but a child protection official indicated it was not because of the children's names. "

Apparently name didn't have anything to do with it. There's more going on. To immediately jump to the conclusion that the parents' neo-nazi ideology has anything to do with this is wrong.

[Quark]

While I disagree with Heath Campbell, and his wife Deborah's ideologies, this is another obvious sign that "We the People" are no longer free. I was unaware that there was a naming standard for children. Although, I have empathy for the children that must grow up with neo-nazi parents, I was unaware that being a neo-nazi was a proscribed activity by our government. The irony is that it is the type of tactic the Nazi's themselves would have perpetrated on their own citizens during the third Reich.

I was unaware we were allowed to assume why something happens, even when we know it's private information that we don't have. Chances are, if it was the naming or whatever, someone will be a whistle blower and you can get in your righteous uproar then. Otherwise, we don't know.

[kandrathe]

I was unaware we were allowed to assume why something happens, even when we know it's private information that we don't have. Chances are, if it was the naming or whatever, someone will be a whistle blower and you can get in your righteous uproar then. Otherwise, we don't know.

When the secret police haul someone off for questioning, would we also say "It was probably for a good reason." This did also happen after 9/11 to citizens and non-citizens who were suspected of aiding and abetting islamicists. "It's confidential" can only go so far in a free society. If the police are saying that the mother and father are loving parents, and CPS says its not about the name, what are we to believe? My theory is that CPS will make the case that the parents are endangering the kids with their beliefs. The implications from the states actions are that some type of abuse or risk of harm is occurring, correct?

Here is another article with a bit more info; Protecting Adolf Hitler Campbell

"Child welfare workers had already warned the children’s dad, Heath Campbell, to remove swastika’s from the family car to avoid endangering the kids. “If the fear is that the Campbells' politics had made them so unpopular" it put the children's lives at risk, then the state can "swoop in and 'rescue' any child" whose parents have controversial beliefs."

What should we think about all the name sakes of Micheal Collins, or the babies named "Osama" after 9/11? Now consider that the swastika (certainly a hated symbol) were replaced instead with the Star of David (hateful to Muslims), or the Cross (hated by atheists, and non-Christians), or a confederate flag, or just a bumper sticker what was politically controversial (such as pro-choice or pro-life). When we as parents publicly affirm our political views, are we putting our children at risk of reprisal from our political enemies? If so, does the state have the right to protect our children from our unpopular political views? Chilling. Consider the risks that Dr. Martin Luther King took, which eventually did cost him his life. Would it have been correct to take his children from him for their own protection?

[roguebanshee]

the Cross (hated by atheists, and non-Christians)

Few atheists care enough about religion to hate the various symbols, and those that do likely hate all of them near equally.

[kandrathe]

Few atheists care enough about religion to hate the various symbols, and those that do likely hate all of them near equally.

It's more likely the other way around actually. Some misguided religious nut might go after the politically vocal atheist. The question still would be "Should the state censor political speech by threatening to remove your children?"

[Jester]

It's more likely the other way around actually. Some misguided religious nut might go after the politically vocal atheist. The question still would be "Should the state censor political speech by threatening to remove your children?"

You have still not demonstrated that this is actually what is going on here. Even if so, there is another way to look at the question: Should the state always refrain from removing children from threatening situations simply on the basis that the situation is caused by their parents' political stance? Do parents have unlimited rights to make their children into political symbols, even if that is endangering them?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You have still not demonstrated that this is actually what is going on here. Even if so, there is another way to look at the question: Should the state always refrain from removing children from threatening situations simply on the basis that the situation is caused by their parents' political stance? Do parents have unlimited rights to make their children into political symbols, even if that is endangering them?

-Jester

There was that whole 60's thing with kids named Peace, Love, Freedom, etc. Then you just have people naming their children with wacky names, like Moon Unit Zappa, or Pilot Inspektor Lee? How about those Rodriguez boys Rebel, Rocket, Racer and Rogue? What about the child named Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116?

And, yes, unfortunately for societies control freaks, parents have still pretty much have unlimited rights. As far as I know the rules for children are 1) no abuse (which is what CPS must be inferring), and 2) must go to school.

Hitler’s Mom Speaks Out, Defies Court Order Or, in other words, the state takes away your children without giving you a reason, orders you to remain silent on the case, and then stalls on the hearings until they can find some legal case against you. Sounds like the tactics of a totalitarian state to me.

Also, isn't this backwards? Shouldn't the state's responsibility be to protect the Campbell's from this seemingly fictitious angry anti-Nazi mob? Has any violence been witnessed, other than the actions of the state? There have been some angry anonymous letters, but that hardly can be construed to be a threat to the Campbell's safety. If they are a threat, then the states responsibility is to investigate the writers of the letters.

[ShadowHM]

Hitler’s Mom Speaks Out, Defies Court Order Or, in other words, the state takes away your children without giving you a reason, orders you to remain silent on the case, and then stalls on the hearings until they can find some legal case against you. Sounds like the tactics of a totalitarian state to me.

And I could equally easily say: "Sounds like a nutjob mom to me". She claims there was no reason cited. :whistling:

Why are you drawing conclusions so soon?

[kandrathe]

And I could equally easily say: "Sounds like a nutjob mom to me". She claims there was no reason cited. :whistling:

Why are you drawing conclusions so soon?

I have kids. If my kids were taken from me without reason I'm pretty sure I would be taking my case to anyone who would hear it including newspapers, lawyers, politicians, God, and the devil himself.

I think the Campbell's are weird in the least, and maybe neo-nazi's. I would not be their friend, or dinner guest. I would fight against their viewpoint with my dying breath. But, I would still stand for their freedom to be weird, and neo-nazi's.

There is a proper legal manner to handle this case that is informed and just. If the Campbell's are unfit parents, or broke some law, then that charge should be made so they can begin to defend themselves. Instead, the consequences are delivered first, with charges pending until the state decides what they should be.

Tyrannical : marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior. CPS agencies tend to be the point of the spear in nanny state politics. See also; Gates' CPS suit continues.. Actually, in my searches on the internet I have noticed the trend that CPS gets involved frequently in families with non traditional political and religious beliefs. You might be safe if you are a Democrat or Republican and follow the Judeo-Christian traditions, but by Jove, just try to be a fascist pagan in our society...

Here is the NYT article, Naming Children for Nazis Puts Spotlight on the Father

[ShadowHM]

I have kids. If my kids were taken from me without reason I'm pretty sure I would be taking my case to anyone who would hear it including newspapers, lawyers, politicians, God, and the devil himself.

I am sure you would. I would too. However...

There is a proper legal manner to handle this case that is informed and just. If the Campbell's are unfit parents, or broke some law, then that charge should be made so they can begin to defend themselves. Instead, the consequences are delivered first, with charges pending until the state decides what they should be.

Damned right the consequences come first. If the children really are at risk, asking questions first and acting later means dead or injured kids.

Your fears about your own kids notwithstanding, it really is appropriate for the PTB to act first and then verify matters if there is a concern about the safety of the children. Until we hear more, you are merely grandstanding, methinks.

Edit: Your concerns may well be valid. But until there is more actual information, speculation about nasty plots and tyranny is not useful.

[kandrathe]

... Your fears about your own kids notwithstanding, it really is appropriate for the PTB to act first and then verify matters if there is a concern about the safety of the children. Until we hear more, you are merely grandstanding, methinks.

I say, if there is merit to the case, then charge the parents with a crime. Where is due process? This is the same mentality that allows the government to take people from their beds in the night never to be heard from again. They are protecting society first, and they'll figure out the charges later in a few years maybe if someone makes a big enough noise about it. AND, that too has happened in America, the former land of the free. I'm not grand standing. I'm outraged by the yoke of government, and I have a right to be outraged. I'm concerned that too many people in America no longer recognize tyranny then they see it. This is not an unfair tax on imported tea, this is a case where peoples children are taken from them with no given explanation. Yes, they are probably despicable people, but unless the children are at risk (from demonstrable parental abuse), then the children should be with the parents. All indications I've seen are that the state is claiming to be protecting the children from possible retaliation against the parents (e.g. telling Mr. Campbell to remove the swastika's from his car to protect his children).

[ShadowHM]

I say, if there is merit to the case, then charge the parents with a crime. Where is due process? This is the same mentality that allows the government to take people from their beds in the night never to be heard from again. They are protecting society first, and they'll figure out the charges later in a few years maybe if someone makes a big enough noise about it. AND, that too has happened in America, the former land of the free. I'm not grand standing. I'm outraged by the yoke of government, and I have a right to be outraged. I'm concerned that too many people in America no longer recognize tyranny then they see it. This is not an unfair tax on imported tea, this is a case where peoples children are taken from them with no given explanation. Yes, they are probably despicable people, but unless the children are at risk (from demonstrable parental abuse), then the children should be with the parents. All indications I've seen are that the state is claiming to be protecting the children from possible retaliation against the parents (e.g. telling Mr. Campbell to remove the swastika's from his car to protect his children).

You didn't, apparently, take in any part of my reply. <_<

Go ahead and fulminate all you like, but you just lost any chance to have a sympathetic ear on this end.

Protecting children is more important than 'rights of parents'. Further, we, the general public, do not and should not be apprised of the reasoning until well after the fact.

If you want to continue to see conspiracy and tyranny, go ahead. :rolleyes:

[Jester]

There was that whole 60's thing with kids named Peace, Love, Freedom, etc. Then you just have people naming their children with wacky names, like Moon Unit Zappa, or Pilot Inspektor Lee? How about those Rodriguez boys Rebel, Rocket, Racer and Rogue? What about the child named Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116?

And Frank Zappa's kids, as best I can tell, grew up just fine, and out of danger, although the one time I saw Moon Unit on celebrity rock and roll jeopardy, she was apparently clueless. The point here is that Frank Zappa named his kids to be unusual. He did not transform them into walking symbols representing one of the most hateful and hated groups in history, then drive them to school in the Nazimobile. I'm not saying there should be a naming register, but at a certain point, there might well be a case that the parents are endangering their kids with their antics.

And, yes, unfortunately for societies control freaks, parents have still pretty much have unlimited rights. As far as I know the rules for children are 1) no abuse (which is what CPS must be inferring), and 2) must go to school.

Negligent behaviour is illegal, which is what I presume is what they are pursuing, if not something more serious. (Again, what do we know about this case? Next to nothing.) Perhaps it has to do with the relative threatening to "firebomb the house"?

Hitler’s Mom Speaks Out, Defies Court Order Or, in other words, the state takes away your children without giving you a reason, orders you to remain silent on the case, and then stalls on the hearings until they can find some legal case against you. Sounds like the tactics of a totalitarian state to me.

(EDIT: Fair enough, the judge did issue a gag order, which she broke.)

It is worth noting that the mother is also either a lunatic or a liar:

Deborah insists they are not part of the Aryan Nation or fans of what Hitler is famous for and said the swastika tattoo her husband displays on his arm is simply art.

Sure. And little baby Joycelynn Aryan Nation was named after her great-grandfather, John Quincy Aryan Nation McDonald. The swastika is also a coincidence, one of those college things you do. The woman is clearly fruit loops, and while that's not necessarily reason to take her kids away, it certainly doesn't make the rest of her statements very believable.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

And Frank Zappa's kids, as best I can tell, grew up just fine, and out of danger, although the one time I saw Moon Unit on celebrity rock and roll jeopardy, she was apparently clueless. The point here is that Frank Zappa named his kids to be unusual. He did not transform them into walking symbols representing one of the most hateful and hated groups in history, then drive them to school in the Nazimobile. I'm not saying there should be a naming register, but at a certain point, there might well be a case that the parents are endangering their kids with their antics.

I don't disagree that Zappa's intention were more playful, but what law was broken by naming your kid Adolf Hitler, or putting swastika's on your car? Or, for that matter, actually being devotees of Richard G. Butler?

Negligent behaviour is illegal, which is what I presume is what they are pursuing, if not something more serious. (Again, what do we know about this case? Next to nothing.) Perhaps it has to do with the relative threatening to "firebomb the house"?

If there is negligent behavior, then make the charge so that the accused can begin to defend themselves. Luckily I have no crazy relatives or enemies who want to fire bomb my house, but would I not be the victim to be defended by the state rather than the person acted against by the state.

It is worth noting that the mother is also either a lunatic or a liar:

Well, they are both on the lunatic fringe, certainly.

Sure. And little baby Joycelynn Aryan Nation was named after her great-grandfather, John Quincy Aryan Nation McDonald. The swastika is also a coincidence, one of those college things you do. The woman is clearly fruit loops, and while that's not necessarily reason to take her kids away, it certainly doesn't make the rest of her statements very believable.

You know, there are satanists who name their babies Lucifer, or worse, but you don't really hear about the state removing their kids much. Maybe they do, and it just doesn't make the national news. It really doesn't matter why they named their children as they did. Did they break any law? We don't know because the state refuses to state their case.

[kandrathe]

You didn't, apparently, take in any part of my reply. <_<

Oh, yes I did. I just disagree with you. I believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the parents, until such time they have an actionable case. If there is evidence of abuse, then arrest and charge the guilty and seize the children at the same time.

Protecting children is more important than 'rights of parents'. Further, we, the general public, do not and should not be apprised of the reasoning until well after the fact.

I disagree again. Parents should be responsible for their children, and only when deemed unfit should children be removed. I agree that we, the public, don't need to know, but it is obvious that the parents don't know what case exists against them either. That is what is wrong here.

If you want to continue to see conspiracy and tyranny, go ahead. :rolleyes:

There is no hidden conspiracy. It is blatant tyranny. We probably have very different ideas about the role of government and that of citizen in a free society.

[Taem]

I don't disagree that Zappa's intention were more playful, but what law was broken by naming your kid Adolf Hitler, or putting swastika's on your car? Or, for that matter, actually being devotees of Richard G. Butler?

I've heard stories of parents involved in gangs in Los Angeles where mothers had their children taken away from them because they choose to live a lifestyle that put the welfare of their children in jeopardy. I see no difference here, and don't disagree with what has been done by the state.

If there is negligent behavior, then make the charge so that the accused can begin to defend themselves. Luckily I have no crazy relatives or enemies who want to fire bomb my house, but would I not be the victim to be defended by the state rather than the person acted against by the state.

When I was young and trouble was brewing in school, I often got pulled singled out by the teachers, but it wasn't because I was the one causing trouble, but rather most of the other students were doing said activity the wrong way and I was "in-the-way", so rather than correct the majority, then choose to focus on altering my behavior. While I did not think this was fair growing up in school, I realize now that it was to keep the peace. I've heard of it happening lots also in prisons where the inmate standing up for himself is sentenced to solitary confinement even though he was not the instigator nor the attacker, however this was done to for *his* benefit rather he felt that way or not. Again, I see no difference here.

You know, there are satanists who name their babies Lucifer, or worse, but you don't really hear about the state removing their kids much. Maybe they do, and it just doesn't make the national news. It really doesn't matter why they named their children as they did. Did they break any law? We don't know because the state refuses to state their case.

Young Adolf gained popularity when Fox News did a stint about a cake store refusing to spell out his name on a cake. Perhaps the parents of Adolf thought they could get sympathy by taking their story to the news, but instead got their child taken away from them.

Did they break any law? I'm not sure, but putting a child in a state of perpetual endangerment because of your lifestyle is an offense the CPS can act upon to remove a child from a home, and I do think this case fits the bill quite nicely - parents driving cars with Nazi symbols on them in public, naming their children after known and hated figures of history, etc. While I do see your argument about freedom of whatever, I think these people just pushed the envelope too far and might not even be completely sane. I'd recommend a full psychological evaluation for the entire family before I'd let the children go back to live with the parents.