Adolf Hitler, Sisters Taken from Parents' Home

reply to post by Xenophiles


Love that "inclusive", "muticultural", "tolerant" attittude you have there! Shame we all can't be as superior as you. The world would be a better place, wouldn't it? That kind of superiority, you might be a prime candidate for "the master race" yourself! The Campbells MIGHT be able to get you an application, if you're nice.

By the way, "nimrod" was a "mighty hunter", and the current usage of "nimrod(s)" is to denote a reasonably successful hunter, derived from that bible phrase. So you have evidence that these folks are successful hunters? Otherwise, the usage makes no sense, unless, of course, you mean to imply that hunters are among those undesirables we're gonna wipe out of our PC country when we get started "cleansing" it.

nenothtu out.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by nenothtu]

Originally posted by Heike Most of you don't know a darn thing more about Hitler, the Nazi party, or what REALLY happened than what they taught you in grade school. Maybe the people who named their kid Adolf Hitler bothered to look past the monster and see the man. Or not, they might just be igorant white trash acting stupid .. but the point is without some more facts and a bit more investigation, YOU DON'T KNOW which it is. ...
Great job denying ignorance.
NOT.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that these folks gave their children these names based upon their committal to the White Supremacist cause, and not as an intellectual exercise in societal reaction to anti-Nazi propeganda. Naming the girl "Aryan Nation" is a pretty solid clue, if nothing else.

And you can cite "Deny Ignorance" 'til the cows come home, but I have better things to do with my life than engage in a debate on the subject of whether or not Hitler was just misunderstood. And excuse me, but so should you.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

I feel that when the health of a child is seriously threatened by the actions of its legal guardians, whether deliberately or through negligence, the State has the obligation to intercede on the behalf of the child.

And what legislation gives the state the ability to remove a child over a name. Even the agency itself is staing they aren't able to remove a child due to its' name. If you are a proponent of creating legislation to allow this then what names are off limits. Should parents have to consult an approved list of names?

Originally posted by harvib

And what legislation gives the state the ability to remove a child over a name. Should parents have to consult an approved list of names?

I don't feel that it is necessary to consult an approved list of names...though some places do. And I think you'd be surprised at the powers of child welfare agencies. And that's pretty well all I care to contribute to the subject as I think my posts have been quite clear.

Originally posted by GamerGal
Just for every one too catch up. The CPS took the kids away but didn't give a reason. Most likely due to the law about disclosing things. Second, even if they only they took the kids away was because the parents were training them too attack a Jewish temple and kill as many as possible it was the right call. You can't let people teach their children that if they're driving along and see a Jew on the sidewalk it is their duty too drive on the sidewalk and run the person over.

Jewish folks are doing quite well for themselves in Gaza at the moment, and they whipped the entire arab world in The Six Day War. I doubt they have much to fear from roving packs of 3 year olds, hell-bent on destroying one of their temples. Don't they teach hate against NAZIs there?

nenothtu out

(I'm mobile, so I don't have the link handy, but...) DYFS said they received a credible call regarding the children and this became the basis of their removal.

Now regarding little Adolf going to school... Wouldn't you expect the teachers and other adults to be extra caring towards this child? Don't you think they would want to show the boy kindness and civility towards others? If they are the ones outcasting him, should they even be allowed around other children? You treat him different, you probably treat my child different if he asks too many questions or wears the wrong brand clothing.

The same with children... When little Johnny comes home and says his classmate has a funny sounding name, will you tell your child to stay away from him because he's evil (then tell your 5 year old about ww2) or will you tell your child to be extra nice to him? Can it not be forseen that Adolf will actually make friends or be exposed to kindess from those who are different (according to his parents) and instead form some ideas for himself? Yea, highschool will be rough, but isn't it for everyone? Wrong name, hair, too fat, too skinny, poor, rich, loner, etc. And don't forget teenage rebellion, doing the opposite of his parent's wishes (guess who likes hip hop?)!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

And I think you'd be surprised at the powers of child welfare agencies.

And what would lead you to that conclusion? I am confused by your statement. Are you indicating that you know of articles that give "child welfare agencies" the ability to remove children because of their name or are you just trying to justify their hypothetically unlawful act. If it’s the former, surprise me. I am very interested in hearing about the powers of child welfare agencies that give them such privileges.

I think you'd be surprised at the powers of law regulating these agencies.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that these folks gave their children these names based upon their committal to the White Supremacist

Yes, you are going out on a limb, and that was (in case you missed it the first round) pretty much my point. You don't know why these people named their child "Adolf Hitler," but you're ready to condemn them based on your assumptions of why they did it, and your assumptions are based on negative propaganda about the man, the party, and the ideology.

And you can cite "Deny Ignorance" 'til the cows come home, but I have better things to do with my life than engage in a debate on the subject of whether or not Hitler was just misunderstood. And excuse me, but so should you.

And you can throw out cliche's until the cows come home, get milked, and retire for the night, but the fact is I believe you've spent a great deal more time in this thread than I have. I also think, since you brought it up, that your time would be better spent debating the ideas and issues presented (or just not posting at all!) rather than attempting to insult people whose opinions you're sure you don't agree with even though you don't understand them. I never said Hitler was "just misunderstood," I said he was a human being and had good qualities along with the bad.

... and your assumptions are based on negative propaganda about the man, the party, and the ideology.

In other news, there is positive propoganda about Hitler, the Nazionals, and the Nazi ideology.
Maybes in supremacist circles...
Our assumptions are based on the reality of the history of the man and his cohorts and their ideologies.

reply to post by cruzion


Remember where you are. On ATS we generally try not to swallow whole everything we're told.

History says one guy shot JFK.
History says Lincoln was a great guy who freed the slaves because he believed in their right to liberty.
History says there's never been a UFO crash on US soil.
What will history say about the US invasion of Iraq?

History says lots of things we know aren't exactly true; facts are skewed by the opinions of those who won, or those who were left to write them down.

The same kind of thinking that tries to blame George W. Bush for all of America's current ills tries to blame one man (Hitler) for all crimes committed during WWII. He was charismatic and powerful in his time, but he wasn't THAT powerful.

There's a concept called reality, and having a handle on it is quite helpful in getting one through life without embarrassment. The trouble is, reality isn't necessarily what they have told you it is.

you all think nj dyfs is so great,then READ THIS
STARVING CHILDREN IN COLLINGSWOOD

now tell me how great they are. i lived 2 towns away from this when it happened. it was major news in the local area.
please read it ,it will make you see things the way they are in new jersey

these kids were under the care and all seeing eye of dyfs. they were so malnurished,they thought the 19 year old was about 7. they found him in a trash can,rooting for food.
dyfs was trying to arrange another adoption for the family,because they get benefits for the extra child. catchin' on yet?


and by the way,the police chief said he had known thhe parents for 10 years and had never had a complaint about them.so i guess thaat kinda kills the speculation.




[edit on 15-1-2009 by Spectre0o0]

reply to post by Spectre0o0


I have found it amazing, people have jumped on this bandwagon saying "the parents are racist and teaching their kids to hate". That is an assumption without facts.

The fact that the authorities took the kids without an explaination as to why and what they supposively did against them, after the whole ordeal with the birthday cake and name, says something right there.

It was not until the birthday cake incident made headlines that the child services came in and took the children. Don't you think that is suspious?

Child services has done a terrible job protecting kids, as stated in the above post. There have been many kids that should have been taken away but were not all over the U.S., many of those kids are not alive today.

There is no right or base for a govt. agency to take kids away based on the name given a child!

Which is the only assumption we have right now, due to no charges coming out - yet against what they have done to the children.

They are probably trying to brainwash the kids into saying the parents did something right now - so they don't look like fools and have overstepped their bounds - in namesake.

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
In the land of the free eh??
This is just an example of how free Americans are.
Freedom of speech???
Land of the free???
As nuts as it may be to name a kid adolph hitler,its even more nuts telling people what they should do and what to name their kids.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by DrumsRfun]

Hey, it's legal to call your kid apple.
Atleast Addy H, is a real name.
I don't support the nazis or anything, but they never abused their kids, so they shouldn've been allowed to take them away.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by krestan]

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by nenothtu
I think gamergal may be onto something here. If we just clean out all these "undesirables" from our cute little country, all us decent folk can get on with the business of living in peace!

The really amusing thing about this, although it may have been unintentional, is that this is exactly how the "Nazi" party started in the first place! They were patriots who wanted to save a country that they perceived as being overrun and undermined by foreigners.

Yes , it was intentional. It was my lame attempt at irony. I reckon maybe I didn't make it ridiculous enough?

At least you got the gist of my point, precisely.

For the lameness of my attempt, I humbly apologize all over myself.

nenothtu out

[edit on 16-1-2009 by nenothtu]

i believe these people are idiots .but if they chose these names for there kids who gives us the right to take there kids away for it. this is supposed to be land of the free.

Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by Spectre0o0

 

I have found it amazing, people have jumped on this bandwagon saying "the parents are racist and teaching their kids to hate". That is an assumption without facts.

No it's really not it's a conclusion based on reasonable observation.
Let's take a closer look.
What are the names of their children?
Adolf Hitler
JoyceLynn Aryan Nation
Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie

And here's some background to the person the child was named after
adolf hitler

One of the foundations of Hitler's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count, eugenics, a pseudo-science that advocated racial purity, and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a programme dubbed Action T4. After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings in fact continued

Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere. In addition to those gassed to death, many also died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labor (sometimes benefiting private German companies). Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles (over three million), communists or political opponents, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists and Neopagans, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed. One of the biggest centres of mass-killing was the extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In short, hitler was responsible for mass murder, genocide, eugenics programs, slave labor, etc...

And they named their child after him. Are you telling me they've never heard of adolf hitler, found his name in a baby book and said, "wow, that's a neat name!, let's call him that!". ?????


Aryan Nation

Aryan Nations (AN) is a white nationalist neo-Nazi organization founded in the 1970s by Richard Girnt Butler as an arm of the Christian Identity group Church of Jesus Christ-Christian. As of December 2007 there were two main factions that claimed descent from Butler's group. Aryan Nations has been called a "terrorist threat" by the FBI,[1] and the RAND Corporation has called it the "first truly nationwide terrorist network"

And they named a child after a clearly racist, possibly terrorist organization? Should I once again assume they found the name in a baby book?


Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie-Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell is named after a prominent Nazi figure, in her case, the feminine version of Hitler's police commander, Heinrich Himmler.

Heinrich Himmler
Was a Nazi German politician and head of the Schutzstaffel (SS). He was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany, competing with Hermann Göring, Martin Bormann and Joseph Goebbels. As Reichsführer-SS he oversaw all police and security forces, including the Gestapo.

As overseer of concentration camps, extermination camps, and Einsatzgruppen (literally: task forces, often used as killing squads), Himmler coordinated the killing of millions of Jews, between 200,000 and 500,000 Roma, many prisoners of war, and possibly another three to four million Poles, communists, or other groups whom the Nazis deemed unworthy to live or simply 'in the way', which included homosexuals and those with physical and mental disabilities. Shortly before the end of the war, he offered to surrender to the Allies if he were spared from prosecution. After being arrested by British forces, he committed suicide before he could be questioned.

Himmler has been named Greatest Mass Murderer of All Time by German news magazine Der Spiegel.

Now why wouldn't any parent be proud to name their child after himmler? What a great guy huh? But once again, maybe a random name in a baby book????
All above sources are from wiki.

The fact that the authorities took the kids without an explaination as to why and what they supposively did against them, after the whole ordeal with the birthday cake and name, says something right there.

A spokeswoman for the state Division of Youth and Family Services, Kate Bernyk, said she would not comment on any specific case, but she said the state would not remove children from a home simply because of their names.

A family court hearing is scheduled for Thursday. Court officials said the matter is sealed and they could not release information about what might be decided at the hearing.

www.usatoday.com...

There is no right or base for a govt. agency to take kids away based on the name given a child!

Your right but we don't know that yet because the information has not been released. According to CPS, that was not the reason.

They are probably trying to brainwash the kids into saying the parents did something right now - so they don't look like fools and have overstepped their bounds - in namesake.

You may be right. Now here's the bad part. If they return the children to the parents, the parents themselves will brainwash the children to believe the CRAP they believe.
It's a lose/lose situation.


[edit on 16-1-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


Again lets try to wrap this up so people can understand. Three children are named after NAZIs by their NAZI parents. CPS came and took the kids, but NOT because of their names. They can't say why because it is against the law too release such information. People have jumped to the conclusion that it was because of the names, but then say there is nothing wrong with the names. If you don't think there is any thing wrong with the names then why would you jump to the conclusion that they were taken because of their names?

You know what i agree there is something wrong with naming you kids after nazis I also think theres something wrong with having pink hair and in my opinion you should be thrown in jail

[edit on 16-1-2009 by WisdomInChains]

Remember the latter day saints a few months back and the children that were taken from there? CPS can do what they want.

Originally posted by GamerGal
reply to post by jfj123

 

Again lets try to wrap this up so people can understand. Three children are named after NAZIs by their NAZI parents. CPS came and took the kids, but NOT because of their names. They can't say why because it is against the law too release such information. People have jumped to the conclusion that it was because of the names, but then say there is nothing wrong with the names. If you don't think there is any thing wrong with the names then why would you jump to the conclusion that they were taken because of their names?

I don't think that we are all saying there is nothing wrong with the names exactly, but what some of us, including myself have stated is that, they have the right to name the kids these names if they wish to. Do you see the difference?

I don't have to agree with what they have done, to defend their right to do so. I personally would not name a kid apple either, but I would stand up for someones right to do so. See there is a difference. In a democratic country these people have this right, wither we like it or not.