State Takes Nazi Named Kids

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Principessa, Jan 14, 2009.

  1. Principessa

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    19,494
    Likes Received:
    28
    Gender:
    Female


    Parents lose custody of Nazi-named kids
    Agency removes 3-year-old named Adolf Hitler, 2 sisters from N.J. home

    The Associated Press
    updated 10:48 a.m. ET, Wed., Jan. 14, 2009


    HOLLAND TOWNSHIP, N.J. - Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state, police said Wednesday.

    Holland Township Police Sgt. John Harris said workers from the state Division of Youth and Family Services removed 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell and his younger sisters, JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell, from their home Tuesday.

    Harris said family services did not tell police the reason the children were removed. Agency spokeswoman Kate Bernyk said it does not comment on specific cases.

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


    No birthday cake for young Adolf Hitler

    Why am I not surprised. These are the type of people who should never have been allowed to breed. :mad:
     
  2. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    Oh good, I was thinking at the time of the whole cake brew-ha-ha, that the parents did this for publicity and hoped it would back fire in their face!
     
  3. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Is it good? So long as the kids are well cared for, I don't think the state should run around taking people's kids just because their political opinions are unpopular. That is actually what appears to be happening here. We are free to raise our children with whatever political and religious philosophy we feel is best for them even if it is unpopular because we have constitutional guarantees of free speech. The constitution protects everyone, not just the popular or merely odd.
     
  4. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    I can tell you for a fact that Social and Family services do not remove children from a home merely because of their political and religious beliefs. An extensive investigation into the welfare of the children is made. So often because of the length of time and red tape it takes that sometimes children are not removed soon enough. And then the public outcry is that Social and and Family Services are inept and should have done a better job at protecting their rights and welfare.
     
  5. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I've got a hunch there's a lot more going on than that.

    In any case, this is more than just a difference of the political opinions of their parents: by naming the children things like "Adolf Hitler" and "Aryan Nation", the parents are demonstrating a huge disregard for the children's social development and psychological well-being. (I'm drawing a distinction between having an unpopular political view, which is constitutionally protected, and conspicuously forcing your children to exhibit it, which may constitute abuse under New Jersey law.)

    But I'm guessing (and I'll admit I don't have proof) that the parents aren't perpetrating a single form of psychological abuse in isolation. Were there guns in the house in too-handy locations? Was the &quot;homeschooling&quot; these kids were receiving compliant with the requirements laid out in Massa? I'm guessing the birthday-cake story got Social Services's attention, but that an investigation revealed far more than just an offensive name.
     
  6. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Then why did social services not tell the police (or anyone else) why the children were taken? If the government has charges against the parents to do something as serious as separate them from their children, then the public has a right to know why the government is acting the way it is. I can tell you for a fact that government does not always act in the best interest of its citizens. Government frequently fucks-up, favors some groups over others, perverts justice in its own interest, applies laws unevenly, and overlooks constitutional rights in the creation and application of law.

    It is the burden of government to prove that the people of New Jersey have an interest in bifurcating this family for a reason other than political beliefs. They have not done that and their lack of disclosure leads me to base my opinion on the one thing that the public and the state would have known about this family before the investigation and that's the political beliefs of the parents.

    We don't have any answers to your question because the government is acting in secrecy. Any time government acts in secrecy against its own citizens, every ounce of public scrutiny should be applied to safeguard our liberties and particularly so when it affects the most defenseless of our members who may well be spending the night in sheer terror of never seeing their parents again. If I were the ACLU I'd be all over this because I'm applying Occam's Razor here and I don't like what I see.
     
  7. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    The reason Social and Family Services do not disclose information is primarily as protection of privacy to the children. When this goes before a court it most likely will become public knowledge. You are entitled to have your conspiracy theories about the government, but until you have worked with Social and Family Services and understand the system it might be best to keep your theories about something you know absolutely nothing about to yourself. You are entitled to your opinion as well as anyone else. But you are stating your opinion as if it's fact and it could not be further from it.
     
  8. D_Portelay Porquesword

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,107
    Likes Received:
    5

    Jason, honey. Hitler is for all intent purposes a MASS MURDERER! The genocide that transpired at the hands of this twisted off ass fuck is a black spot on the pages of history.

    Normal people do not name their children after people like this.

    Perhaps child services is trying to evaluate the parents to see if the are in their right minds or not!?! Don't mistake our freedom to raise children according to whatever religious philosophy as an excuse for naming an innocent child after someone like Hitler and not expect repercussions!

    Perhaps they went about it the wrong way, all will be handled in a court of law and for the greater benefit of this kids. Let's not start talking about secret agendas just yet.

    IMO someone needed to ask these questions, the most important being: Are these people qualified to raise a child after giving them such horrific names?!?!?!?!

    If you are blessed with children, go ahead name your child John Wayne Gacy Els and take notice of how people are going to look at you. Then throw a fit when someone conscientiously objects to putting that name on a cake (which they are free to do) further drawing attention to your poor decision making skills.

    These people do not have both oars in the water.
     
    #8 D_Portelay Porquesword, Jan 14, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2009
  9. Cowabanga

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    373
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    northwest
    Verified:
    Photo
    If there were rumor that the parents were doing drugs or let kids play with guns, The social service will swoop in and inspect the homes to protect the kids real fast. If they find something, then the parents will lose their kids until they go to trial. The parents are legally obligated to provide a safe homes for the children.

    I don't think it's a conspiracy, but when children are involve the matter does seem a bit overzealous with the police state like action. But I think in most countries they follow similar persuant of potential harm to the children. Defending those that cant defend themselves is a strong trait among most civilize society.

    I don't think naming the kids such hated name qualify as a crime, but it does beg the question of their ability to raise children, and I exspect there is more to the story. Usually poor reasoning of naming their child overflow to other reasoning skills as well.
     
    #9 Cowabanga, Jan 14, 2009
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2009
  10. mindseye

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    nudeyorker has already replied to this point, and I don't have much to add to his reply.

    The Department of Youth and Family Services requires a court order to remove children from parental custody (source); they didn't act alone.

    You're claiming to apply Occam's Razor here: to how many other cases of child abuse have you applied this reasoning? In other words, what evidence can you bring forth that a different standard of public disclosure is occurring with these minors from with other minors?
     
  11. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    The fact is the parents hold wildly unpopular political beliefs and that their children were taken from them and the government did not publicly (or privately to the police) disclose why. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's a fact.

    You must admit that you too have no other fact in this matter than I do and your exhortation to trust government in this case is therefore no more valid than mine to force government to prove there is some other motive than the political beliefs of the children. In such a case, it is then the responsibility of government to prove it acted in the interest of the children.

    Many in government believe they are acting in the best interest of others. The road to Hell, after all, is paved with good intentions. The fact however, may be very different and to sever a parent from a child, the most intrinsic and life-defining bond there is, requires a government to act with the utmost care and that is not in evidence. Faith that government will do the right thing is all well and good but history has proven that is not always the case. Well-meaning agencies and bureaucrats frequently overreach their authority.

    I am not saying the government of New Jersey has acted improperly in this case, but I am demanding that the government of New Jersey prove that it acted within the law. Any government entity acting within the law should have no qualm or worry about proving such a thing.

    In our system of justice and government, the default advantage is given to those who government seeks to control whether through act of law or incarceration. As American citizens we have particular rights which government cannot transgress under even the most sacrosanct of guises. It is not improper, indeed it is incumbent upon us, to hold government responsible for its actions. Desire to do good deeds and blind trust of those who act in the name of government is not enough to justify vacation of that scrutiny which we as citizens must apply to our government.
     
  12. nudeyorker

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    42,918
    Likes Received:
    36
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC/Honolulu
    Jason, there just reaches a point where you don't listen to anyone but your self talking. The facts in this matter will likely come out and you will eventually find out the answers you don't want to hear now.
     
  13. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    I like Jeffrey Dahmer-Els better. Besides he was waaaaaay hotter than JWayne Gacy!
     
  14. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Dismiss me all you care. I'm surprised that a lawyer does not appreciate that the justice system is biased in favor of the public precisely because government has a tendency to overstep its bounds. If you feel safe in trusting government in everything it does then good for you. Perhaps you've been lucky and not suffered injustice at the hand of government and so you do not readily appreciate the value of what I say.

    Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't want to hear answers. In fact I stated that answers should be demanded. You seem to have fabricated an entire backhistory, assuming that I believe there's a travesty of justice taking place. What's next? I'll hear that I'm a Nazi sympathizer?

    The fact is that unpopular political beliefs are protected by the first amendment. We are entitled to raise our children with whatever beliefs we choose, unpopular or not. Our first amendment, our most precious right, not only safeguards the popular but the unpopular, sometimes the shockingly unpopular. You may not like the parents, you may want them not to have children, you may want the government to take their children away, however that in and of itself is not the law of this country. Moral indignation does not law make and thank goodness for that.
     
  15. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    I've changed my mind. The kids should be named Els-Bundy. 'nuff said.
     
  16. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Jason, they haven't disclosed the reason for the children's removal from the home in this case because they don't disclose the reason for a child's removal from the home in ANY case. Not to the press, not to the neighbours and not to the police.

    Mindseye may have it right in that there is likely much more going on than just the matter of the kid's names.

    Who's to say that the kids weren't being indoctrinated with a regimen of physical abuse?
     
  17. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    And then who is to say they were?

    Government should never operate in shadows against its own citizens. I hope this gets to court immediately as, I would hope, all cases like this do.

    Ultimately I have to ask which is more Nazi-like? Naming a kid Adolf Hitler or the government taking away someone's children for political purposes? Which is ultimately the greater threat to freedom?

    My position is that it's necessary to make sure it is not the latter.
     
  18. morsecode

    morsecode New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    2
    They'll just make another one and name it Auschwitz Concentration Campbell
     
  19. Gillette

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    8,309
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Nova Scotia
    Obviously taking the kids away for political purposes would be the more nazi like.

    However it's an enormous assumption on your part that politics has anything to do with this.

    They were removed by family services, not homeland security.

    Breathe, ffs.
     
  20. HellsKitchenmanNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    5,848
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York
    Tell that to the folks in the south who hold summer camps for kids and teach them to hate Jews and blacks. Yeah I didn't make it up it was on 60 Minutes.
    Some people just need to be stopped to protect the rest of society. And no I am not being the judge on this case I don't know all involved yet but if I was doing stand up....."well if y'r gonna name yr kids Nazi names chances are............."
     
Draft saved Draft deleted