It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Adolf Hitler, Sisters Taken from Parents' Home

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I saw this on the morning news. I'd say that they were kidnapped. They've done no wrong. I'm sure if they had broken any serious law, that the media would be all over it. This is against the freedom of speech and if you love freedom you must agree that it is illegal for them to take their child away.
If you remove someone else's freedom, you have removed your own.




posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
By naming their children the way they did, these people made some very clear public statements. If Mom and Dad subscribe to the white supremacist ideology there are various organizations and associations they could simply quietly join. There is even an 'American Nazi Party'.
But politically influencing and naming the children in a manner that would automatically put them on a path of confrontation with society and thereby drive them to likely committ crimainal acts is mentally abusing these children. Nothing less. I hope they find good foster parents. I personally see a cycle that needs to be broken.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lupusyonderboy
 


sorry guy,but they work under the guise of "children first"
they yank the kids on a whim, then you have to prove you are a good parent. suing doesn't enter into it.
i cant tell you how wrong these people are.they are monsters.
they create exactly what they are designed to prevent.
and once they have you,they're like a virus embedded in your registry. rooted into your life forever.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre0o0
make no mistake about it,new jersey is a fascist state. i have dealt with dyfs before and they need no reason to take your children away.
no court order,no proof,nothing.i just recently escaped from new jersey ,myself. i had to raise my daughter there and the school she went to got us involved with these idiots.
they have no special training or extra education for the "social work" they do.
i had smacked my daughter on the bottom for something that deserved it,and at a conference at school,i told them so. thats when they stepped in. it wasn't anything that could have hurt her,and they knew it.
the CAMDEN branch came to my house and "inspected my child"while i was told to go into another room.
the case file was open until she was 18.
the only way i got them off my back was to call them to ask them how i was supposed to discipline my child when she was bad.
their answer was always the same...i don't know.
got to be they wouldn't answer my calls anymore.
but they got to ride around in state cars,with state cell phones doing what they wanted to do.
i also knew a couple that was getting seperated.the wife thought she was slick and reported her husband for abuse. dyfs came right out ans with no proof,took the children away,and put them into the system.no proof,no court order,just took them.thats what they used to do in germany ...it's called fascism plain and simple. so please dont tell me that new jersey had a reason.until you have proof.
i lived there a long time and i never saw them do ANYTHING constructive in the community.

DYFS IN NJ=DIVISIN OF YOUTH AND FASCIST SERVICES

also,clinton's gun ban was almost word for word translated from the nazi gun control laws. i guess they should have taken chelsea away for that too.
doesn't that make him a pro-nazi parent?



[edit on 14-1-2009 by Spectre0o0]


Wow, if that is the way the state runs their child services, then people need to start suing over that! That is outrageous. I can not believe that it is run that way in the U.S.

Yet there are children that are being terribly abused and neglected elsewhere and the state doesn't do anything about it.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
"...a New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services spokeswoman said that the agency would not remove children from a home based on their names alone."

"Just to be clear, removal of a child from a family is only done when there's an imminent danger to a child and that wouldn't include the child's name alone," spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said. "We wouldn't remove a child based on their name."

See: NJ.Com Article

Also, for the comment about how the State runs it's DYFS program...NJ just split DYFS off of the rest of the Department of Human Services due to a handful of death & mismanagement leading to Federal oversight for a period of time. A majority of administrative staff who were involved in the mess still managed to keep their jobs or were re-hired after being "publicly" fired. It's also a governor election year...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It's obvious the parents are idiots - they're just protecting the children.
Probably a wise move judging on their decision to name their child after a sociopathic mass murderer, and architect of aggressive genocide.
The Nazionals might have been on to something with eugenics...



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by cruzion
 

The UN 'Rights of the Child' is promoting the govt. to step in and raise our children. I know this from firsthand experience. Social Services can step in and remove a child on the basis of hearsay, false allegations, and speculation. NWO is coming true. If it takes a village to raise a child, then our govt. are the idiots! While I don't care for the names those parents chose for their kids, that doesn't mean the state has reason to intervene.



posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 





Rights are one thing but equating the right to name your child something that will ruin his future and teaching Nazi values to a right worth protecting, is carrying it into the silly zone. Arguing for that is just arguing for the sake of arguing and any semblance of common sense has left the building.


This certainly is a very polarizing issue but I don't think anyone here is arguing for the sake of arguing. I think the debate comes down to who is responsible for raising ones children, the state or the parents. Our nation has a precedence of allowing the parents to raise their own children.

You feel the state should regulate the naming of the child. How about clothing? After all there have been more then a few kids that have had a terrible time growing up simply because of the clothing their parents provided. How involved should the state be in parental affairs?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GamerGal
 





Lets make this very clear. Every child has been named after a NAZI. The house is filled with NAZI crap. The Parents are covered in NAZI tattoos.


It is relatively clear that the parents at the very least hold admiration for the Nazi party. And arguing to the contrary is a little absurd.



Next it is child abuse to brainwash your children in to being hate filled monsters.


What evidence do you have of brain washing? I am assuming that you are referring to the ideology they are most likely teaching their children. In this Country parents are free to teach their children any ideology they deem appropriate (for now anyway).

I believe that some religious organizations that make children feel guilty over very human behavior causes untold damages. However it is not my place nor the states place to intervene because it is the parents prerogative to raise their children however they see fit regardless of how offensive I find it.



[edit on 15-1-2009 by harvib]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I just had one more quick thought. I was reading up on this family, they have been getting death threaths from people. Would the state remove the kids to protect them?

I mean if I was the family in this story I would place the kids with relatives if the death threats were that bad. The state said they would only remove the kids if their lives were in imminent danger, could that have something to do with the death threats, and possible harassment?

I mean the dad won't comment, but at one point he says they were not taken, another source is saying they were taken, the police are saying that there are no reports of abuse, etc. (So if there are no reports of abuse, why were they taken?)

They have a hearing on Thursday so maybe we will learn more. It's unusual however, cause there is not a lot being said from the family. If they were forcefully removed then why not speak out?

I wonder if they were removed for their protection, like witness protection, but would they do that to kids, and would the family not just go and stay with other family?

Also the father and mother in this story can not work, or are not working due to disabilities of some kind, like a bad back or something, so they are being assisted by the state. If the kids were taken forcefully, then I am not sure if they could get a good lawyer, but the first story where the dad commented, it didn't sound like they were taken by force, yet something doesn't add up. I really want to see more details about this, but I can confirm they were getting harassment and death threats, actual death threats.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Poor kids, I hope they grow up in an all white neighborhood. And if not, I just hope other people of different backgrounds can see past their name so properly chosen names, 'Hilter', 'Hinler', and 'Aryan Nation'.

How about I name my kids Rapist and Monkey Humper and see if I get away with the whole "Free Speech" deal.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Blaine91555
 





Rights are one thing but equating the right to name your child something that will ruin his future and teaching Nazi values to a right worth protecting, is carrying it into the silly zone. Arguing for that is just arguing for the sake of arguing and any semblance of common sense has left the building.


This certainly is a very polarizing issue but I don't think anyone here is arguing for the sake of arguing. I think the debate comes down to who is responsible for raising ones children, the state or the parents. Our nation has a precedence of allowing the parents to raise their own children.

You feel the state should regulate the naming of the child. How about clothing? After all there have been more then a few kids that have had a terrible time growing up simply because of the clothing their parents provided. How involved should the state be in parental affairs?



Speaking of the state stepping in again, they just made some kid get a different hair cut, because he said the shapes cut into his hairstyle might be mistaken for Gang Signs and again, I wonder where it will end. It probably started with tee-shirts and not it's the hair cut.

If this case does have something to do with the name in any capacity, then we still need to voice how wrong that is, because once they start stepping in, the state does not stop.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Lets be real, the name is offensive and will always be so..the parents are fools to think that in so naming an innocent for the evil of the past that they are keeping something of value alive. Yes the parents deserve to have their children taken away for protection from the ignorance and hate that their parents quite obviously espouse. Err on the side of caution..an open and fair hearing..and if community standards are not respected..and hate is being forced on the children then..thats it



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
www.nj.com...


"Just to be clear, removal of a child from a family is only done when there's an imminent danger to a child and that wouldn't include the child's name alone," spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said. "We wouldn't remove a child based on their name."


So the childs name could have been a part of the reason. What kind of imminent danger was this kid in. His birthday was the 14th of December, they got removed last week, I am guessing around the 7th. So withing the three weeks of the story in the newspaper what imminent danger could they have been in?

www.nj.com...


Threat over Hitler cake sent to wrong family

Tuesday December 23, 2008, 9:50 AM
Police in Holland Township are investigating a death threat mailed to a family mistaken for residents who named their son Adolf Hitler Campbell.

Melanie Campbell is not related to Heath and Deborah Campbell, who complained when a supermarket refused to spell out their 3-year-old son's name, Adolf Hitler, on a birthday cake.

However, her daughter's name is Heather and was listed in the phone directory under Campbell, H.

The typed, unsigned letter said her children would die and "you will all end up like your Nazi friends: dead."


You talk about these parents being messed up, but when you start to threaten a family for having the poor taste of naming their kids names that we don't like or approve of, then who is the sick person?

To threaten to kill the kids, that's crazy. I can see them not liking the mom and dad for the bad baby name choices, but it's still a choice, and b, who is the monster when you start threatening to kill kids? That's messed up.

If the state thought someone was really going to follow through on one of the death threats, cause apparently there were others, do you think that could have been the imminent danger?



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SUNRAY06
reply to post by questioningall
 


Lets be real, the name is offensive and will always be so..the parents are fools to think that in so naming an innocent for the evil of the past that they are keeping something of value alive. Yes the parents deserve to have their children taken away for protection from the ignorance and hate that their parents quite obviously espouse. Err on the side of caution..an open and fair hearing..and if community standards are not respected..and hate is being forced on the children then..thats it


The name is offensive only if we give it value, and power to be so. If people had decided not to vote for Barack Hussein Obama, cause his middle name was part of Saddam Hussain, and his last name reminded them of Osama Bin Ladin, which a few times they did call him Osama, then it's the same kind of ignorance.

I mean what if you are named Roger Moore, and tomorrow there is a leader who has the same name who turns out to be a monster, are you and everyone else who shares the name going to change it?

What if this family had the last name of Hitler, and decided that Adolf was a good first name, then what? Should that kid still be abused, cause the family like Adolf as a name, and what if that family wants a cake with the child's full name?

In this case, it was not a wise thing to do, naming your child Hitler, but it's still a choice, and in a democratic country if we don't stand up for that choice, we will loose our choices in the future, so in standing up for their rights, I am standing up for my own. That's the way I see it.

I don't want to be told which religious principles or names to choose for children, people should be able to name their kid mango if they want. (Not my choice, I'm just saying.)

What about the family who's last name is Dahmer and decide they want the first name of their child to be Jeffery? What then, should the kid expect to be beaten up, and have a state investigation opened on him while in the cradle, cause his name might make him a monster some day? We as a society create monsters in many cases, and we have also the ability to stop this from happening.

If these kids were removed from their family for the name, then we have taught the family about ignorance and intolerance by our very actions, that we are accusing them of. Think about that.

I don't know all the circumstances in this case, I wish I did, but till more is known, it is speculation. I am trying to see if I can put together the pieces of the puzzle, but I would like to hear from the family and the state about what is going on, before passing full judgement.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Spectre0o0
 


Well, I don't know what happened in your case. Maybe you had a bad case worker. They are certainly out there. However, most case workers are required to have a Masters Degree in Social Work (or at least they are in the Department of Developmental Disabilities, which is separate, but I imagine they have similar standards). I highly doubt that DYFS is that much different and doesn't require advanced degrees for their social workers.

Also, even if there was no abuse in your case, you have no idea what goes on behind closed doors. There could have been abuse you didn't know about in your friend's case.

Finally, at least for DDD, it takes a ridiculous amount of evidence to remove someone from a bad situation. In that department, no one is going to be removed from the home based on a slap on the behind. Sometimes it takes a long time to build up a case due to all of the regulations involved. It really has to be proved.

The people on this forum that are complaining about these kids being taken away would (rightfully) be just as outraged in a situation where there was gross neglect or abuse and a child was harmed or died as a result.

To comment on the general matter (not in response to your post), there is NO EVIDENCE that these children were taken away solely based on their names or the FACT that their parents are white supremacists (not necessarily the same as a member of the Nazi party though still rotten IMO). The police department received no complaints, but DYFS may have received calls. DYFS already issued a statement saying that these children were not taken away solely because of their names. It is perfectly understandable that the circumstances surrounding the removal of the children from the home are not made public yet. This would only serve the appetite of a public that has become too accustomed to 24-hour tabloid-style news, and in no way would help the children, and may even hard them if there parents are under investigation (for example if no fault is found and the kids are returned, but the media spread all sorts of nasty info about their parents).

While I have an immensely strong dislike of white supremecists, if the kids physical and emotional needs are met, they should not be removed from the home (I admit grudgingly). AGAIN, we have no reason to believe that the children were removed either for their names or for their parent's beliefs. I'm fine with not knowing the rest of the story as long as these children are not hurt.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
For the time being, I have to agree with the decision to remove these children. Any parent stupid enough to name their children like that cannot, in my mind, facilitate a healthy environment for the children to live. That they would not even have the foresight to understand the verbal and physical abuse it will bring them, nor do they care, all for the sake of making a political statement rather than looking out for the best interest of the child.

While I cannot find a moral or legal platform sturdy enough to justify the removal of these children (rather than, say, requiring a name change) - I have little doubt that earlier publication of their names via the birthday cake stories raised more than a few red flags at Child Welfare Services and put the family under watch. The decision to remove the children was likely based on evidence turned up by the investigation. I will reserve final judgment on the matter until further details are available, but from what I've heard thus far, I see no reason to damn the government for pulling innocent children from potentially very abusive situation.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Harassment101
 


Wrong. Abuse of a child is not a right. You can uphold your first ammendment rights all you want on your OWN behalf, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But when your first ammendment rights put the life and mental state of your children in jeopardy, good people cannot sit around and let it happen. Any parent who thinks it is okay to inflict any sort of abuse on a child is not fit to be a good, loving parent and therefore should not be allowed to look after a child, especially when their own mental state is questionable.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
For the time being, I have to agree with the decision to remove these children. Any parent stupid enough to name their children like that cannot, in my mind, facilitate a healthy environment for the children to live. That they would not even have the foresight to understand the verbal and physical abuse it will bring them, nor do they care, all for the sake of making a political statement rather than looking out for the best interest of the child.

While I cannot find a moral or legal platform sturdy enough to justify the removal of these children (rather than, say, requiring a name change) - I have little doubt that earlier publication of their names via the birthday cake stories raised more than a few red flags at Child Welfare Services and put the family under watch. The decision to remove the children was likely based on evidence turned up by the investigation. I will reserve final judgment on the matter until further details are available, but from what I've heard thus far, I see no reason to damn the government for pulling innocent children from potentially very abusive situation.


I agree that they did open an investigation. The birthday cake incident drew lot's of attention to this family that might otherwise not have been given, and it probably also allowed several people who are I don't want to say busy bodies, but people who assumed they were harming the kids or teaching them hate, to go about finding a way to get these kids removed.

I found this.


www.nj.com...


According to a state administrative code: "The designation of a child's name, including the surname, is the right of the child's parents."

It's a right that most parents take seriously, putting so much thought into it that they'll go out of their way to avoid a name that evokes a negative response (such as one that reminds them of the class bully, for example).

Not the Campbells.

"Naming a child 'Adolf Hitler' shows a great irresponsibility on the part of the parents," said John Alpert, a Manhattan psychotherapist. "The motivation seems to be entirely selfish, at the cost of the child's emotional health.

"Kids tease others based on their name, and there's no doubt kids are discriminated against as a result. Many times I've had clients named Dick talk about how they were teased as a kid."


Judging the families motivation. Saying that they don't have the best interest of their kids at heart. Should the parents of children name dick now also be worried?

I will also wait for more on the story, but I do know what my opinion will still be in regards to pulling children from a home, based on their names if this was the case.

If there are other reasons involved then I would like to hear them. The parents did not choose the names well, the same is true for naming your child Saten, Lucifer, etc, but it's still a choice.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SUNRAY06
 





Err on the side of caution..an open and fair hearing..and if community standards are not respected..and hate is being forced on the children then..thats it


And what legislation allows this. An open and fair hearing for what crime? What you are proposing is unlawful.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join