I agree with you that firearm possession and Oath Keepers shouldn't have been included on the affidavit.
I've maintained that Oath Keepers is being set up — I just didn't know by whom.
The following interview with Grandpa Irish may, and I tentatively say ‘may’, shed some light on why Oath Keepers was included on the affidavit. It's obvious he and his son are at odds and that should be judged objectively while listening to this interview.
“Oath Keeper Baby” Grandad Backs CPS (DCYF) — on FreeKeene.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knFeIyeuSy8&feature=channel
(around the 3:00 to 3:30 point in this interview, Mr. Irish makes some eye-opening statements about his son's “non-association” with Oath Keepers and the son's claims about his behavior in relation to that organization)
This interview sheds some light on how the Oath Keepers were possibly included on the affidavit.
Oath Keepers should press the issue of how John Irish is NOT a dues paying member of their organization nor does he in any way represent their membership or its goals.
You're right about the dad and son. Obvious antagonism, and some attempt at fairness even so. Decent reporting and commentary by the blogger. Wish LSM was as careful.
Sounds like the son is trying for help, and knows he doesn't deserve it. In which case, we are both right. Yes, someone is trying to set Oath Keepers up, probably the son, and yes, they need to hammer the state of New Hampshire for accepting the association, tenuous as it is, and his possession of firearms as reasons to take the baby, without contesting that they had the lawful and appropriate need to take the baby due to his abusive nature.
In a way, it's kind of sad that both of us had to comment on the decency of the other. I do remember when that was taken for granted here on FR. I won't say I never get excited and post hastily, but I TRY to behave myself. ;)
Old Student