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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xenophiles
reply to post by Harassment101
 



Well, these nimrods came right out and said that they were nazis, so there goes your argument.


Can you point to the link where they admitted to being Nazis. Since I can't find the link myself? Thanks.


chances are we'll find out that those nutcases were either raping or beating them, or both. Trash like that does tend to abuse their offspring, almost as a matter of course. Such behavior is endemic among the uneducated, under-employed underachievers of any society.


You are so insulting. Just because people and I don't even mean these two, but others are ueducated, under-employed, and uderachievers, does not mean they love their kids any less. Also there is no evidence thus far that they are nut cases, who were raping the children. If it does turn out that they were, then of course removing them was warrented, but there is no evidence to indicate that was the case. I would still like to see a like to where they admit to being Nazis, cause last month they were flat out saying they were not. (They could have been lying, but I still want proof.)



[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by godoftheforest
 


But if the parents were really all right, wouldn't they consider their child before their political beliefs? Wouldn't they know this child will experience extra, unnecessary suffering and wouldn't they want to do everything they could to prevent that suffering?

What if they named their child RAPIST ? That's just a name too.

What does it say about the parents who would knowingly inflict mental abuse on their child by putting that child in a situation that will cause that abuse?


It's says in my opinion that it was bad decision making to choose the names, but it also shows they thought that the world would be tollerant enough to handle it in a free and democratic society and they are finding out that the country is not that free or democratic.

The child will only be abused, by an ignorant society, which we prove time and again to be, that is why it's important to not have kids taken away for stupidity like the name choice the parents made.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

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.



The oldest child had just turned three, I know you can teach young children a lot of things, and it's possible that they were teaching the kids full blown hate, but since they were under three, is it likely?

We are making all sorts of assumptions, till we hear more, we just don't know for sure. We can guess, but I doubt they were teaching a child that was two for most of last year, to drive over anyone, but I leave the possiblity open.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by godoftheforest
 


But if the parents were really all right, wouldn't they consider their child before their political beliefs? Wouldn't they know this child will experience extra, unnecessary suffering and wouldn't they want to do everything they could to prevent that suffering?

What if they named their child RAPIST ? That's just a name too.

What does it say about the parents who would knowingly inflict mental abuse on their child by putting that child in a situation that will cause that abuse?


It's says in my opinion that it was bad decision making to choose the names, but it also shows they thought that the world would be tollerant enough to handle it in a free and democratic society and they are finding out that the country is not that free or democratic.

What would make anyone think that the world would be tolerant of this? They didn't think we'd be tolerant, they were willing to sacrifice their child's future to push their political agenda.


The child will only be abused, by an ignorant society, which we prove time and again to be, that is why it's important to not have kids taken away for stupidity like the name choice the parents made.

The bad part is that if the child is left with the parents, he will also be abused, at the very least-mentally.

It's a no win situation.
It's stupid situations like this that give the government the excuse to invade our lives further.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amelie
If this was only about the the name, then this was wrong. If we don't support this family trying to get back their kids, we don't support freedom. First they come for the kids named Hitler, then they will come for kids whose parents are members of message boards that question 9-11 or the Holocaust.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Amelie]


Then they come for the parents who are conspiracy theorists. Those people are crazy to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, to teach that stuff to their kids is just plain old abuse, we should see what's going on in that home. The kids will be mocked and made fun of for having those beliefs.



Or those people are crazy to believe that the world is ruled by elite powers, let's get the kids out of that enviornment.


I also saw on another board one poster compare these people to christians who teach their children about an all seeing onipotent God, and that the earth was created in 6000 years. This person thought that those people also deserved to have children removed from homes.

So again it's a slippery slope, and what we allow today to happen to others, will be our own fates tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Freedom does not mean lawlessness. What is it they say about a right to free speech does not permit one to yell fire in a crowded theatre? I don't think people have a right to consciously, purposely, screw up their kids. That is negligence, which is abuse.


It was bad decision making, but was it really negligence? What about the parents who name their kids other outrageous names, are they neglegent also?

Again we could then say this about people who name their kids dick, since we know that that name might be made fun of. I got this from one of the articles.




And I believe that the state should be able to act in extraordinary circumstances as long as they are transparent. Like spot checks for drinking drivers. It violates unreasonable search laws, but it keeps a lot of people alive.


So you think taking people's kids is like a government spot check? I am scared of you, and a future that you would create with the views you hold.




These fools should be made to account for themselves, but the onus remains upon the state to do so as well. Either way, this should be interesting.


I agree it should be interesting.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amelie

How is it unlawful to name one's child Hitler? No one can determine that a name will screw up a child, if that's the case what other children should be taken away because of their names? A person has the freedom to admire Adolph Hitler and name their child after him, whether we like it or not.


See that's democracy working. We might not like the name, or the choices made, but in a democratic country this has to be open and working, when it stops, then you know that democracy is slowly breaking down.

All I know is that within three weeks from when the story ran about the cake, to last week when the kids were taken the state found them to be in so called imminent danger, so what did these people find in those three weeks?

It would be good if the state or the parents would comment, but I guess we have to wait and hear what happens at the hearing next week or whenever these people are suppose to go to court.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What would make anyone think that the world would be tolerant of this? They didn't think we'd be tolerant, they were willing to sacrifice their child's future to push their political agenda.


Tolerant of naming your child what you choose to name them in a democratic society. Yes that was what I was refering to. I don't know what they were thinking, you don't know what they were thinking. Maybe they really were trying to push a political agenda, I don't know that they were thinking this would affect their kids. The dad did say he thought it was just a name and that they would be fine once they started school. Maybe he was more naive than he should have been. It was bad decision making, but you know what, for three years they lived and the kids were not brutalized as far as I know. People obviously heard the name and survived.

Again the only way the kids futures will be sacraficed is if we as a society make it so.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101

Originally posted by jfj123
What would make anyone think that the world would be tolerant of this? They didn't think we'd be tolerant, they were willing to sacrifice their child's future to push their political agenda.


I don't know that they were thinking this would affect their kids.

A parent doesn't have this luxury. Their number one responsibility is to their children and anyone with any amount of common sense would realize naming a child after one of the most evil men in recent history, would more then likely, cause their child damage in some way.


The dad did say he thought it was just a name and that they would be fine once they started school.

If it was just a name, why pick that particular name? If they were not trying to make some type of point and a name is just a name, they would never have picked that ONE name.
Regarding the dad's idea that they would be fine once they started school. The father is either a liar or a complete fool.


Again the only way the kids futures will be sacraficed is if we as a society make it so.

Or if the parents turn their children into racist, ignorant adults. You can't blame it all on us as the parents put their children in this situation to begin with.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harassment101

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Freedom does not mean lawlessness. What is it they say about a right to free speech does not permit one to yell fire in a crowded theatre? I don't think people have a right to consciously, purposely, screw up their kids. That is negligence, which is abuse.

So you think taking people's kids is like a government spot check? I am scared of you, and a future that you would create with the views you hold.


Well, I wouldn't be. I'm trying to make a point about the extraordinary exercise of government powers. You are promoting the parents' rights over the rights of the child. I am comparing apples and apples...the excercise of free speech vs the exercise of freedom from unlawful search and seizure. Don't make it into something I didn't say.

Further, I'd rather the parents have to account for themselves now, than later, under siege by the ATF. Remember Koresh? I know members of the Aryan Nation and the CSA...Klukkers, folks like that, and in their extreme you don't want them raising kids.

I have also seen where kids have come to a bad end because the State was too limp to rescue them when they had the chance. I'd rather the kids' long-term interests come up for consideration before your fear of having your civil rights impinged upon. I am saying...again...government transparency is essential, as is further information on our part. I have no idea if the parents are meth monsters or what...but what they named their kids doesn't sing their praises. I say let it play out.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I know naming their child Adolf IS wrong in many ways, but it is just a name.
If they named their child Adolf because they hated jews then that is DEFINETLY wrong.
If they named their child Adolf because they wanted to take the mick, then that is also wrong.
If they named their child Adolf because they wanted to be all over the news, then that is wrong too.
It depends in what way they meant it.
You see, there is different views on this matter... but as I said it is wrong in many ways, also very obscene. I hope they change the name of their child else he will not go very far in life. Calling a child Adolf Hitler can make him commit suicide in later life.
Hmmm very wrong still... and I do not know how the parents were to their children, the agency could of took them off for different reasons and the parents could of been lying.
I see you have some quotes off Friedrich Nietzsche, one of my favourite philosophers. Thus Spake Zarathustra best book he wrote.

Thanks for reading.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
So what is the solution? If the children were removed due to their names can we all agree this is unlawful? If we all agree this was unlawful then what should be done, in these instances, moving forward? Are we to allow agencies to act outside the law and support them when we agree with their unlawful decisions?

No one here can really support Government agencies being able to act outside the law, especially when it comes to our children being taken away. At the very least their needs to be new legislation created. Maybe the solution is to have all names approved by the state.

If we are going to that extreme we should also consider legislation that regulates parent’s choice of what religious ideology, political ideology, hairstyle, clothing, the health of the parents’ marriage, etc... After all these things can have a significant impact on causing difficulties growing up. Our first priority is to protect the children isn't it? Why wouldn't we all support such legislation?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Here from NJ itself...

The three Hunterdon County siblings removed from their parents home were taken for reasons other than being named after Nazi figures, a state official said, according to a report in The Express-Times.

The report said a custody hearing is scheduled for today in Flemington.


Rich Schultz/AP
Heath Campbell, left, with his wife Deborah and son Adolph Hitler, 3, pose in Easton, Pa., in a Dec. 16 file photo.

"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," Kate Bernyk, a spokeswoman for New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services, told the newspaper. "We wouldn't remove a child based on their name."

The children's names are Adolf Hitler Campbell, 3, Joyce-Lynn Aryan Nation Campbell, who will be 2 in February, and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, who turns 1 in April.

The children and their parents, Heath and Deborah Campbell, received attention last month when a northwestern supermarket bakery refused to put Adolf Hitler Campbell's name on a birthday cake."


I'm not in the mood to get "INTO" New Jersey at the moment but it is also a disaster.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
So what is the solution? If the children were removed due to their names can we all agree this is unlawful? If we all agree this was unlawful then what should be done, in these instances, moving forward? Are we to allow agencies to act outside the law and support them when we agree with their unlawful decisions?

No one here can really support Government agencies being able to act outside the law, especially when it comes to our children being taken away. At the very least their needs to be new legislation created. Maybe the solution is to have all names approved by the state.

If we are going to that extreme we should also consider legislation that regulates parent’s choice of what religious ideology, political ideology, hairstyle, clothing, the health of the parents’ marriage, etc... After all these things can have a significant impact on causing difficulties growing up. Our first priority is to protect the children isn't it? Why wouldn't we all support such legislation?


This is exactly why this is a lose/lose situation.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
To those supporting the taking away of these children:

Do you feel that the parents of Dick Butkiss (Butkus) should be punished also?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You are promoting the parents' rights over the rights of the child.


So, it's not OK to name your child Adolf Hitler and if you do, you will have all your children taken away, but, if you don't believe in western medicine and leave your child to die, then that's A-OK in this country?

If you don't know what I'm talking about, search for crazy religions such as scientology that won't alow life saving drugs and/or procedures.

Should we be taking John Travolta's other children away since he allowed his other son to die without any medical help?


Further, I'd rather the parents have to account for themselves now, than later, under siege by the ATF. Remember Koresh? I know members of the Aryan Nation and the CSA...Klukkers, folks like that, and in their extreme you don't want them raising kids.


What about religious nuts who allow their children to suffer for decades and die when they could have saved them with medicine?


I have also seen where kids have come to a bad end because the State was too limp to rescue them when they had the chance. I'd rather the kids' long-term interests come up for consideration before your fear of having your civil rights impinged upon.


So, you do agree that all Scientologist's children should be consfiscated then?

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 1/15/2009 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
...but, if you don't believe in western medicine and leave your child to die, then that's A-OK
Should we be taking John Travolta's other children away since he allowed his other son to die without any medical help?
...What about religious nuts who allow their children to suffer for decades and die when they could have saved them with medicine?
...So, you do agree that all Scientologist's children should be consfiscated then?


I think I've made it very clear what my thoughts are, where my limits lie, and what I feel are the responsabilities of the government. Please don't attribute other arguments to me based upon your interpretation of the processes at work.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

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.

If you're an American and have ever considered that deporting all the illegal immigrants would be a good idea, you just started walking the "Nazi" path.

If a black family teaches their kids to be proud to be black and wants them to marry blacks and care about the survival of the Negro race, is that okay? I guess so, it's happening every day. But when it's WHITE people who want to teach their kids to feel proud that they're white and be concerned about the survival of the Caucasian race (or an ethnicity such as Germanic, Scottish, Irish, Celtic, etc.) it's racist and it's wrong. Talk about a double standard!

Hitler has been stereotyped and demonized by a great deal of propaganda, and the fact is that whoever LOST THE WAR is always the bad guy. At least he had a REASON for what he did, and in the beginning his reasons - and goals - were mostly about patriotism and trying to save his country. Yes, he sure did go overboard with it and I think it's quite likely he suffered from mental illness. But how is it that a man who followed his beliefs and ideals to the extreme is more evil than people who simply hurt others for their own enjoyment? Is evil a statistical thing, it goes by the numbers? The more people who've been hurt or killed because of you, the more evil you are? Is then a person who has been raping, torturing, and perhaps eating children or other people a lesser evil just because he only personally managed to reach a few dozen instead of thousands?

Adolf Hitler was not a paper cutout or a demon, he was a human being. A misguided human being, yes, but a human being. He was extremely intelligent, charismatic, creative, passionate, patriotic, etc. In short he had many good qualities which people choose to ignore in favor of painting him as a monster so that he, one person, can be blamed for everything bad that happened during that time. And what could be the purpose of that? To take the focus - and the blame - away from the German people as a whole perhaps? And yet behavioral studies show us time and time again that most of us are capable of this type of behavior under the proper stimulus.

I thought the ATS motto was Deny Ignorance, not Promote Ignorance. How about a little investigation prior to contempt? 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. Nor, apparently, do you care - you'd rather just condemn 2 human beings based on what they chose to name their kid because you've been taught a lot of negative propaganda about that name and what it supposedly stands for.

Great job denying ignorance.

NOT.



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


I didn't mean to single you out in my rant. But, my comments still stand.

And I'll ask again: Do you feel that all scientologist children should be confiscated?



posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 

I didn't mean to single you out in my rant. But, my comments still stand.
And I'll ask again: Do you feel that all scientologist children should be confiscated?


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.

I trust this satisfies your curiousity.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join