“Terrorism is a deadly tactic, not an institution or an ideology.”

Obviously. I can't believe this even needs to be said. Sad.

My only problem with this man is the brief he filed with the Supreme Court, in which he stated that there was no individual right to bear arms. Scary to have someone who does not have enough common sense to understand that as the attorney general.

Yea Holder & British Foreign Secretary - it's lovely to hear people talking sense!

If the kids were taken because of their names, the state's out of line - I hope they're not going to make a case against the parents for being idiots.

IMO, any person who names their child such a vile name deserves to have their children separated from them.

Hmmm. Even a lib like me wouldn't go that far in encouraging government intervention in family life.

Geez, Org - it just keeps getting BETTER!

"IMO, any person who names their child such a vile name deserves to have their children separated from them."

How about Joseph Stalin? Or Alex Rodriguez?

If the parents are willing to name their kid after one of the most evil persons in the world, what do you think they are teaching that child on a daily basis? That kind of brain washing doesn't just go away when the kid turns 18. It usually rears it's ugly head in the form of a racial killing.

I really hope that there was a better reason than that to remove the children from their parents, but I kind of doubt it. You're allowed to teach your child all the hateful, racist things you want.

And I'm with Org about the AG. That's unacceptable.

UnDave, do you really think every child raised to be racist ends up killing the target of their hate? Even if it did, in this country we don't remove children from their homes because someday they might commit a crime.

I think those kids SHOULD have been removed. I mean, okay so maybe they said they like the name Adolf Hitler. I don't think I would question it, if they didn't have ANOTHER child with the name Arian Nation. I get the feeling there's more to this story and this family's behavior than what we're being told.

IF they only took them because of the names, that's not right. BUT, if they have prior knowledge of communist behavior by these parents, then I just don't know. This is a case of "There's more to this than meets the eye" and I just don't know the right answer.

Waterboarding, hm. Do I like the idea of it? No. However if we have someone in custody that we know has information that is of vital importance to the safety of our country and it's citizens, then I can't condemn those that make the decision. We've got men fighting and dying all over the world. Tough calls have to be made to keep them safe. I do not envy those in the decision making positions.

"I really hope that there was a better reason than that to remove the children from their parents, but I kind of doubt it. You're allowed to teach your child all the hateful, racist things you want."

Exactly, Mich. It's unfortunate, and the parents are repulsive, but...free country...you know?

In any case, if a precedent is set for removing a child from its parents' custody because the authorities decided that the parents' beliefs are unacceptable, then in the future children could be removed from their parents for other beliefs, depending on who's in authority. It's a dangerous precedent to set, no matter how much we all loathe anyone who'd name their kid Adolf Hitler.

Remind me to steer clear of the thought police.

"IF they only took them because of the names, that's not right. BUT, if they have prior knowledge of communist behavior by these parents, then I just don't know. "

What year is this? Are you Jospeh McCarthy? If we're taking kids from their parents because of "communist behavior", we'd better round up Sasha and Malia! Somebody call CPS.

Yeah, seriously.

I guess that for some, the institution of government-protected personal freedoms only extends to people whose beliefs are considered socially acceptable. Disappointing.

I find it endlessly fascinating that saying there was no individual right to bear arms is deemed "unacceptable", but so much else from the current Dept of Justice has passed without a wince.

But what the heck - it'll all be over in less than a week!

"I find it endlessly fascinating that saying there was no individual right to bear arms is deemed "unacceptable", but so much else from the current Dept of Justice has passed without a wince."

Steph, you obviously haven't been watching my face too closely. I'm in serious pain.

Someone got their mindreading power back.

Sorry, basing it on past comments - literary winces as it were.

Mich, what would you call your politics? Just wondering, cuz you always make sense, but I can't really call you Republican (in today's sense anways) or Democrat

Maybe they like the names because of what Hitler stood for aside from killing jews. I can't say I would ever want to name my kids those names, but you cannot truly say why they named them that. People have surely named their kids muslim names after people who want the entire middle east to be only muslim with no western interference. People have surely named their kids after black supremacist leaders. You simply cannot take a kid away simply because you do not agree with what they named them. That would be the most absurd thing I have ever heard. And you can teach you kids all the hateful things you want. You can see Michelle Obamas thesis to see what she believes about white people, which has been rather hateful. Who knows if she is teaching that to her daughters.

communist ??? what???? Communist behavior would be telling people what they can or cannot name their children!

Mich - Not every racist names their child such a horrible name. I'm not saying we should punish the child, but there is something seriousily wrong with parents who would name their child after that person. Don't you agree?

Just because they name their children a bad name does not = bad parent

Dave, every one of us could say that there are many things seriously wrong with many parents. It doesn't mean that the children should be taken away from them. Is there abuse? Neglect? Or is it just a case of trying to protect the child from an ideology we find objectionable?

All I was saying was that we don't know what other behaviors created the issue that caused the kids to be removed from the home. We do NOT have all the answers. While I know I said in that first line of my comment they SHOULD be removed, as I thought about it, my answer is I just don't KNOW. None of us do. we aren't privy to the reasons behind this other than what we've been told and we ALL know that we never get 100% of the story.

I saw a story on these people a while back. They said they named their kid Adolf Hitler because it was unique and no one else would have that name. They said it was nothing related to Hitler and what he stood for. Just like they named their daughter JoyceLynn Aryan Nation.

Granted naming your kid Adolf Hitler isn't a smart move, but I don't think the state should take kids away for bad naming. I mean there are some pretty bad names out there. Especially when you combine them with their last names. If there is a case of true neglect here, then the state had every right. Just for the name? I don't think so. The kid can change his name later if he wants... and make his parents pay for therapy later in life.

Naming your kid AH will make him an outcast, except in neonazi circles, where he will be a minor joke. IMO, this is a form of cruel and unusual punishment on the child.

I hope that the state has more to go on than the names...

There are so many kids that I'd like to take away from their parents based on what they named their kids!

Anyone read Freakonomics? How about sh*thead (pronounced, SheeTAYed), or lemonjello and orangejello (leMONgelo and oRONgelo)? Or how about the recent case of parent who named their kid LeWayne (pronounced LeTWayne with a silent T)?!

There are so many terrible parents it's impossible to keep track. Let's just start removing all of their kids and put them into our super-awesome child protective services system.

It could be argued that naming one's child Pilot Inspektor is also cruel and unusual and would make the child mocked and an outcast, but you don't see the state beating down Jason Lee's door to take his kid away from him.

And don't get me wrong, I feel super sorry for that kid. But I feel really sorry for kids of morbidly obese parents who are already overweight at age 3. It's cruel and unusual to give your kid no shot at a healthy childhood.

Unfortunately we don't get to pick who has kids and I wouldn't want to live in a society where that is the case.

I do however think that IUD devices should be offered for free to a lot of people for a lot of reasons.

The name isn't destiny, UD. The kid could easily come up with a nickname they prefer and most kids and grownups would go along. As an adult, the kid could change the name. People have been overcoming nitwit parents since the beginning of time.

Can we agree that those stupid names aren't names of one of the most evil people on the earth? There's a difference.

It doesn't matter. If the parents aren't starving or beating or molesting or otherwise causing harm to their child, then the state has no right to take the child away just because we find the parents' thinking to be objectionable.

Yes I agree with you that it's not quite the same. But I still think that more is needed to remove the child from that home.

Freedom comes with lots of sh*tty decisions.

Pop, all those names you just gave us, never existed. Snopes.com disproved it.

And i believe they never existed either. because why? here, in my office, i have heard the "a nurse i know, who knows someone who knew someone said that they had a kid named (exactly the names you said) at the hospital" its an urban legend.

anyway, I dont think that kid should be taken away because of a name, he should be taken away only if his parents were abusing him mentally physically or emotionally or withholding basic needs.

Zeze, thank you! I appreciate that. I actually have difficulty picking a label for my politics too. There are problems with every party and philosophy. I guess the closest thing is libertarianism.

"Sorry, basing it on past comments - literary winces as it were."

Just out of curiosity, what actions by the current Dept. of Justice are you referring to that I supported in past comments?

I always heard it pronounced sh*th-eed for sh!thead. Worst names I've ever seen are some my sister had in her CCMS days, Uh-huh, uh-uh and mmm-hmm. Now those are bad. She also had seven that were named after the seven deadly sins. The woman actually had the last two just so she could finish them out. All before she was 25 too.

I posted on the other site, I work at a hospital and process birth certificates and ssn requests. I have seen lil' big boi, clorox, and my favorite aryan princess of california. Oh and twins named hennessy and alize (you know the alcohols)

I was so happy to hear him say water boarding is torture and that the President can't say otherwise. Things keep happening where I'm like...wait...I'm happy about this? Such a weird feeling.

Mich, it's not about what you've supported, it's about what actions you never found unacceptable.

Steph, which actions are those?

The actions by the Bush Justice Department that came up for discussion here on Citizen. You've never been a serious critic here of Bush's attorney generals.
There's no law that says you have to be, so there's no need to get defensive or combative.

Steph, I'm not trying to be 'combative', I just want an example of a single action of Bush's attorney generals that came up for discussion. Honestly, I can't comment on every single story on Citizen and sometimes I stay out of things because a) I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, or b) I don't have a strongly developed opinion on the matter. I just don't want you to assume you know what my opinion is simply because I don't leave a comment.

So yes, I feel it's unacceptable for our Attorney General to believe the right to bear arms is an individual right. But there are many, many other things that I can't stomach. If you want to know my opinion about something, I'd be more than happy to discuss anything with you.

"a single action of Bush's attorney generals that came up for discussion."

The politicization of the Justice Department, the firing of federal prosecutors, the use of torture, the wiretapping of U.S. citizens...

"So yes, I feel it's unacceptable for our Attorney General to believe the right to bear arms is an individual right."
Is that what you meant to say?

Oops! No that's not what I meant to say. I'm sure you know how it was supposed to go .

I can't believe I missed an article about wiretapping U.S. citizens. Surely you've seen me complain about the PATRIOT act?

As far as the politicization of the Justice department and the firing of federal prosecutors, I guess I was in class when those stories came up. I don't know enough about those subjects to have an opinion on them anyway. And the use of torture? I've made a conscious decision to stay out of that one.

"And the use of torture? I've made a conscious decision to stay out of that one."

More than one story came up, but it's not important.
I am allowed to be fascinated by what people deem unacceptable while giving other things an argument or a pass. It is my right to be fascinated.

Steph, certainly you're allowed to be fascinated. I'll always appreciate being fascinating. But I don't appreciate comments that seem to judge and assume. Like I said, I'm always willing to discuss something with you, but I'm not interested in trading sharp, baseless comments.

And by "one", I meant topic, not one particular story.