[SatinDoll]

Danger, Stewart Rhodes! You’re being had.

This man Irish is unemployed - neither a policeman, fireman, or military member - and has abused the married woman he lives with AND her two older children. He assaulted and battered this woman while she was pregnant.

Has it occurred to anyone that this just might be a setup used to tarnish the reputation of the Oathkeepers?

[AbolishCSEU]

today’s definition of assault and battery in the feminazi NOW gang domestic violence industry is an extreme glowering at a woman.

[Old Student]

“This man Irish is unemployed - neither a policeman, fireman, or military member - and has abused the married woman he lives with AND her two older children. He assaulted and battered this woman while she was pregnant.

Has it occurred to anyone that this just might be a setup used to tarnish the reputation of the Oathkeepers?”

No, Ma'am. His point is that the CPS people, the cops, and the judge, had no business including the association with Oath Keepers or possession of firearms in the affidavits, or in accepting them in the decision to take the child. NONE! Rights of association and possession of firearms are constitutionally protected. They are not reasons to take a child. If the man is accused of child abuse, that is all that should be in the affidavit, and all that should be mentioned in the court order. That is not what happened here, and Oath Keepers is absolutely right to challenge this. The NRA, GOA, and every other 2nd Amendment group should also be on their case, as well.